Support North American Free Trade AgreementEssay Preview: Support North American Free Trade AgreementReport this essaySupport North American Free Trade AgreementThe North American Free Trade Agreement seems to have more benefits than downfalls. I would have to support NAFTA, as it has had a very positive advantage for the U.S. The NAFTA not only helped U.S. agriculture exports grow by more than 50%, but also provides jobs for more than 250,000 people. While NAFTA eliminates or reduces tariffs and trade barriers between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, the U.S. is not the only economy that benefits from NAFTA. As a result of NAFTA, all three countries have dismantled trade barriers which have integrated the market for these three countries. The three countries are each others number one and two top export markets.
The U.S. agriculture sector has dramatically improved since the implementation of NAFTA. For example, the agriculture trade between the U.S. and Mexico has increased by at least 150 percent from 1993 to 2005 and the agriculture exports from Mexico to the U.S. has more than tripled since the start of NAFTA. I also support NAFTA because it does not force, or require the participating countries to become integrated into one monetary system, or any other social or political aspects.
There are several negative aspects that have been mentioned about NAFTA and its effects on the other countries, mainly Mexico. There are issues that NAFTA has encouraged immigration and that the illegal residents are stealing jobs in the agriculture sector, which makes the U.S. unemployment very higher than ever. There are also concerns that the agreement has caused many farmers in Mexico to go out of business due to the growing costs of supporting the agriculture market. While these issues are relevant and important to deal with, it seems that NAFTA has made very beneficial marks on all three countries, and the negative issues are something that must be dealt with by each individual country, or as a joint effort, if so desired by the participating countries. Although there may be some downfalls to NAFTA, I would have to say that there are more benefits.
The NAFTA deal is seen as a step in the right direction. The U.S. remains in NAFTA and will continue to support the trade-off over time. But the final piece of the package might be a comprehensive and mutually beneficial deal. To make this happen, a lot need to happen. With the last remaining piece of the package, the U.S. may want to consider the potential consequences as well as how to get there. With the final piece of the package in place the U.S. should be able to put together an American trade agenda that would benefit the economy, protect workers and create the American dream. This will require Congress to act on those issues – but one that’s really needed is for the Mexican government to act.
“Many of the issues being raised by the Trump campaign are not merely about immigration or the status of people, but about how NAFTA will help those industries and how much it’s a good deal for the United States – a deal that could lead to the elimination of a number of big unfair barriers to entry.”
“In 2015, when I met with Mexican officials, I saw significant progress in advancing NAFTA. On the one hand, there is some concern that there’s more competition between the three countries, and that Mexicans might become more susceptible to illegal immigrants, particularly in Mexico.”
In light of the recent reports that NAFTA was a bad deal for the U.S., many are asking a number of questions. Here are some:
What effects are the U.S. already having from NAFTA?
The U.S. and Mexico are at odds over how much their business and trade relations will look like once the agreement becomes effective. A good start would be for the U.S. to consider giving up some of existing benefits of NAFTA and take more of an international role. But I note that there has been some pushback in Congress from members of both sides as they have not been upfront about their understanding of what is happening. This includes a number of Republican House members expressing concern about U.S. trade ties with Mexico or the prospect of it dropping under NAFTA because of enforcement difficulties. (In some cases I’ve met with many other Republican lawmakers who are not even familiar with what the agreement does, which is that it is no longer a non-issue for them.)
One thing that has been raised privately is on whether U.S. companies could become more competitive in Mexico, and how much more of a role the American firms would have if they could remain in Mexico. Some GOP representatives have said there’s a chance of these companies getting stronger, with potential to join the NAFTA market. One other possibility is that U.S. multinationals could turn their focus to Mexico where they could compete on a global scale.
Does it matter that NAFTA will put Mexico over the top?
I think both sides of the issue would benefit if the negotiations were successful. In addition, there’s the possibility of having some kind of fair trade deal in that market. The economic implications would be enormous from a business and trade perspective as well as from social and political and environmental perspectives – and from trade diplomacy – as well. I’ve seen the case of a company that is going to need to relocate. It might not know where it is, or how many workers are there but it might have a decent idea of what Mexico should provide. NAFTA is a great deal for all parties, and it makes sense for all