Government CANNOT Take People's Opportunities.

In Texas Public Policy Foundation’s blog article “Occupational licensing keeps many from driving toward prosperity”, Dr. Derek Cohen, the director of the Center for Effective Justice and Right on Crime at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Vance Ginn, Ph.D., director of the Center for Economic Prosperity and senior economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation stated that In order to expand job opportunity and decrease crime rates, Texas should eliminate unnecessary occupational licenses. Cohen and Ginn consider that earning license coat is too much and this labor restriction raises prices, therefore, it decreases consumers’ consumption and their satisfaction. Also, these doctors say that Occupational licensing reform can reduce recidivism. They report that states that have high occupational licensing burdens increase new-crime recidivism but states that have low high occupational licensing burdens decrease it.

I strongly agree with their arguments. According to the blog, Texas requires that cosmetologist need 350 days of training, but emergency medical technician(EMT) need only 35 days. As a consumer, I care more about my life than my hairstyle. I want EMT to have high-quality techniques to save people’s lives. Also, labor restriction narrows people’s dreams. There are so many talented people who can provide high-quality services in the world; however, if they cannot afford to take courses to earn licenses, their high-quality talents will never come into the world. About recidivism, I believe that responsibilities make people grow, and workers feel companies rely on them make workers confident in themselves. Therefore, the occupational license can lead people to more responsibility, and that might reduce crime rates as well. It is clear that Texas should consider to fix these labor market impediments and make low-cost training and high-quality technicians. It can change a vicious cycle to an efficient cycle.    

Mexico--United States barrier has been a major controversial topic in America. According to El Paso Times, president Donald Trump has mentioned El Paso to justify his wall barrier policy. He states, “The border city of El Paso, Texas, used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our Nation's most dangerous cities. Now, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities.”
In the article “Violent crime in El Paso before and after border fence”John Shjarback, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at El Paso, and Victor Manjarrez, associate director of the Center for Law and Human Behavior at the University of Texas at El Paso stated that the crime rate of El Paso has drastically decreased since 1995. However, it has not changed the crime rate since 2008 when the border wall was rebuilt. Therefore, the border wall cannot be the primary solution to reduce the crime rate in today’s El Paso.
   I agree with the previous mentioned opinions because as mentioned in the articles, local, county, and federal, such as U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have contributed to reducing the city’s violent crime rate by almost 500 percent over last few decades. This number shows that it is possible to reduce the crime rate without the wall. It is a fact that the border wall has been protecting the United States, but the crime rate has not changed. Therefore, president Trump and the government should consider another way to prove how much the border wall is essential to the United States of America.