The passage of NAFTA has removed or removed barriers to trade and investment between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The impact of the agreement on issues such as employment, the environment and economic growth has been the subject of political controversy. Most economic analyses have shown that NAFTA has been beneficial to North American economies and the average citizen,[5][6] but has been detrimental to a small minority of workers in sectors subject to trade competition. [7] [8] Economists have estimated that the withdrawal from NAFTA or the renegotiation of NAFTA, in a way that would have created restored trade barriers, would have affected the U.S. economy and cost jobs. [9] [10] [11] However, Mexico would have been much more affected, both in the short term and in the long term, by the loss of jobs and the reduction of economic growth. [12] While Mexico`s unilateral trade and investment liberalization measures in the 1980s and early 1990s contributed to increased U.S. direct investment in Mexico, NAFTA`s foreign investment provisions may have helped strengthen Mexico`s reforms and investor confidence. NAFTA has helped give U.S. and Canadian investors non-discriminatory treatment of their investments as well as investor protection in Mexico. Nearly half of Mexico`s total FDI investment is active in the manufacturing sector. Before sending it to the U.S. Senate, Clinton added two subsidiary agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) to protect workers and the environment, as well as to allay the concerns of many members of the House of Representatives.

The United States has required its partners to comply with similar environmental practices and regulations. [Citation required] After much attention and discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993. Supporters of the deal included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The legislation passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38. [21] The Supporters of the Senate were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Republican Congressman David Dreier of California, a staunch supporter of NAFTA since the Reagan administration, has played a leading role in mobilizing support for the agreement among Republicans in Congress and across the country. [22] [23] After the election of President Trump in 2016, support for NAFTA was highly polarized between Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump has expressed a negative view of NAFTA, calling it “the worst trade deal ever adopted in this country.” [159] Republican support for NAFTA has grown from 43% in 2008 to 34% in 2017. Meanwhile, Democrats` support for NAFTA has grown from 41 percent in 2008 to 71 percent in 2017.

[160] A duty rebate is the restitution or exemption in full or in part of the duties collected or collected on the importation of a property or material subsequently exported. In 2008, Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico totaled $381.3 billion and imports $245.1 billion. [59] According to a 2004 paper by University of Toronto economist Daniel Trefler, NAFTA provided Canada with a significant net benefit in 2003, with long-term productivity increasing by up to 15 per cent in the sectors that experienced the largest tariff reductions. [60] While the decline in low-productivity jobs has reduced employment (up to 12 per cent of existing jobs), these job losses have lasted less than a decade; Overall, unemployment has declined in Canada since the legislation was passed. Trefler commented on the compromise, saying that the crucial trade policy issue was “how free trade can be implemented in an industrialized economy so that the long-term benefits and short-term adjustment costs borne by workers and others are recognized.” [61] Methanex Corporation, a Canadian group, filed a $970 million complaint against the United States.