# Talk:North American Free Trade Agreement

North American Free Trade Agreement is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
 December 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

## American/Mexican border paragraph sounds crazy

Of course Mexicans don't want to leave...we're a superpower ecomony wise and they're poor. That comment about the fence not letting Mexicans into mexico is really biased/far left craziness. The police have to drag back illegals to mexico (no pun intended) Needs rewording. That and they're getting away with "no fence" knowledge because of the no vote thing with NAFTA Superhighway. We have to be fair on this. Renegadeviking

First of all...Your calling them "illegals" is incorrect. Calling them "illegal" is implying that they did something against the law, the term illegal mis used in a criminal wrong doing. Calling undocumented workers "illegal" is incorrect because crossing a border without documents is a Civil offense. Second many farm workers are stripped of land, their work, and their entire lives. NAFTA is an agreement that in fact increases the amount of undocumented workers. When a huge company makes miles and miles of corn fields and are paid to do so by the U.S. a small farm worker can not compete, because every season while the man makes 2 or 3 acres of corn the company makes a square mile of corn, they can sell it cheaper which forces the poor farm worker to sell his corn cheaper, but now the farm worker can make no money. He is forced to move into a city to find a job, this is the beginning of a chain, he is unemployed and is willing to work for any amount of money. Another huge corporate factory which can pay the poor man extremely little hires him. He becomes so poor he can not sustain himself. He crosses the border without documents because the line for a passport of visa takes years. he is then caught in the U.S. and is shipped back where he works again for a factory and the long cycle starts over. As the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, this is the basis of Capitalism and the reason globalization exists is to spread market capitalism. Kgs499 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

a civil offense across international lines is illegal so he isn't wrong in saying that. as a person doesnt follow specific protocols and become documented then yes they broke the law. 66.154.187.167 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)nyto

POV here. To enter a country, you need to follow the rules. Illegal means you are breaking the law. Illegal, quoting is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law or, more generally, by rules specific to a particular situation. Civil or criminal is not a distinction. --statsone 03:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
According to this definition, someone who parks illegally is an "illegal." If you call someone an "illegal" what makes it specific to illegal border crossers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holmesxc (talkcontribs) 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
ugh. The term 'illegal' is shorthand for illegal immigrant, because the person migrated from A->B in a manner that violated immigration laws of that jurisdiction (taken from the wikipedia article). Piepants (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)piepants

"Calling them "illegal" is implying that they did something against the law."

Ummm, yeah, when you cross a border without permission into the United States, according to LAW, you have now committed a felony. So the reference to "illegal" is correct and yes they DID do something against the law. No thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfreeman420 (talkcontribs) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the word 'uninvited' could be used. We have this debate here in Australia all the time. Those who turn up on our shores without an invitation are called illegals by some, others argue that they are legal under the Refugee Convention. But that now leads to an open door policy which is extremely expensive. I obtained an invitation, called visa, when we came here. We can also call them gate-crashers, but some people object, although that is the most precise definition. No country can afford to let people come willy nilly in significant numbers and they need to understand that. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Typo in header of this section: Border is the political division between two regions. Boarder is something else.Richard416282 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• If you have illegally entered the united states, you are here illegally. Illegals is a short way of getting that across. Joesolo13 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This misses the point of this article entirely. NAFTA was originally negotiated by Reagan with the Heritage Foundation drafting an agreement with Mexico starting in 1980 as the FTA. In 1985 Canada asked to be a part also. Trans Canada then promised US Steel that if Canada were a part of NAFTA preferential status for US Steel would result in contracts of pipe for drill rigs (remember drill baby drill?) and the Keystone pipeline. After NAFTA was signed by Bush on December 17, 1992 Trans Canada used 60,000 Canadian workers who gained authority to enter the US under NAFTA to start building Keystone I to Chicago, Keystone II to Oklahoma, Keystone III to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana, and Began Keystone IVXL. Clinton then issued two supplements working closely with the steelworkers to protect Labor and the environment. The problem with Mexico was GM was going bankrupt and promising its unions that it could only save their jobs in MI and MA if it could build new plants in Mexico without the labor and environmental restrictions it would encounter in the US. Finally, many people who were born in the US are undocumented but have committed no crime. They are not illegal. Undocumented is a better term and includes people who have survived being orphaned as an infant but lost their documents and identity in disasters such as the influenza outbreak of 1918 which killed 500,000 Americans all at the same time, or even just a car wreck; or who entered the US legally, but need to correct their visas due to changes in their original reason for entry such as a change of employment, or school, were legally born in the US but not in a hospital, which means their birth may not have been properly certified, are part of an indigenous sovereign nation or territory inside the US affected by changes to its treaties or status as a state; there is a long list and it includes people from every nation on the planet. 142.0.102.118 (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

## Infobox

Can a Wikipedian skilled in making infoboxes make one (an infobox) for this article. The flag, name, population, GDP, etc. of the bloc could be included. Chiss Boy 13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I got us started :-) --Iliaskarim 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
where did you find this image? It looks good but I used the current one because it's available on the USDA's website, so I hope it's relatively official. See: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/NAFTA/nafta.asp --Iliaskarim (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

## Britain joining NAFTA

During 2000-2002, some British politicians, particularly on the right, showed an interest in joining NAFTA, as an alternative to the European Union, which, through conformity in many social, welfare and economic aspects, was seen as restrictive to British interest. Being a key member in the latter bloc, there was much opposition to this move.ref: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2633/is_5_14/ai_66155090 I have deleted this paragraph because the article used as a reference is written by "Phil Gramm (R-Tx.) is Chairman of the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee." and does not cite in any part of the article a single British politican, except for the ambiguous "One colorful opponent". Moreover, although we should not judge external sources, this article is full of lies, for example, any EU state can leave the European Union whenever it wants (Greenland chose to leave the Union when it got its partial independence, for example), even though it's not clear how could it be done and nobody wants to do it. If someone finds a better reference, include this part again. Sdnegel, 12:11, 17th June 2007 (UTC)

A country could leave the EU simply by repealing their national laws that cede authority to the EU. The EU does not have a constitution and therefore relies on the enactment of laws (including treaties in monist countries or ratified treaties in others) by it's members for the legal basis of it's authority. Under such a framework leaving the EU is as uncomplicated as withdrawing from any other treaty. Given that is your prime example of the sort of "lies" contained in the source I have to question just how full of lies this source really is.Zebulin (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

## On Jamaica/Trinidad & Tobago's attempts at joining NAFTA in 1995

It had also been proposed by the governments of Jamaica and the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago in 1994 that they too wanted to join NAFTA as well after they declared themselves "NAFTA ready" by Jan. 1995.

CaribDigita 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

### Caribbean-American lawyer calls for US to include Caribbean

Article: Calls for Caribbean plank in US Democratic Party platform Date: Friday, August 1st, 2008 Source: www.cbc.bb - Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation - Barbados

A Guyanese lawyer and prominent community activist in New York has called on the United States Democratic Party to incorporate a Caribbean plank in its 2008 election platform.

[ . . . ]

02:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

## Date NAFTA was signed: to the anonymous user

Please review your concepts. NAFTA was signed in 1992, it came into effect in 1994. It couldn't have been signed in 1994 since it came into effect right on 1 January 1994. Obviously it cannot come into effect before it is signed, unless it was mysteriously signed at 00:00 on 1 January 1994, which wasn't the case. If you have any doubts, please review the following articles [7], [8] (this one by the US gov't), and finally from the NAFTA's webpage itself [9]. Please stop changing the date. NAFTA was signed 11-17 December 1992, not in 1994. --Alonso 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to Alonso, the recorded vote on H.R. 3450, the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, was passed on December 8, 1993, and became Public Law No 103-182, in the U.S. Senate. See the Library of Congress website.-R. Ketah-Roxas.

I don't know how to do the citation thing but here is a reliable citation which dates the signing of NAFTA as 1992. You can delete this comment when you put up the citation. Vaudree http://history.cbc.ca/history/webdriver?MIval=EpisContent&series_id=1&episode_id=17&chapter_id=3&page_id=2&lang=E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.58.47 (talk) 00:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the citation thing, but will give you the info and the source and you can do it. Seems that the name changed from FTA to NAFTA when Mexico joined. What does "expanded" mean - that the FTA between Canada and the US remained as it but the relationship between both Canada and Mexico and between the US and Mexico was added?: The signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade agreement on Jan. 2, 1988, ...

At the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 1989, a full year after this official signing, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement goes was finally implemented.

On Jan. 1, 1994 the FTA was expanded to include Mexico and incorporated into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1996-12755-10/politics_economy/twt/ Vaudree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.58.47 (talk) 00:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Checking the main site for the NAFTA Secretariat FAQ [10] the agreement was signed on different dates during 1992. The page has been updated. --statsone 04:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

despite its obvious connection to the participating political bodies, the US library of congress is a much more reliable source than the canadian broadcasting corporation. chances are the CBC used 2nd hand evidence while the LOC has exact copies of the original documents. CSPAN is also a great source of information related to US legislation (particularly regarding exact times and dates). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.178.173 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How could NAFTA been signed by Bill Clinton in December of 1992. He was only President-Elect. If it was signed by anyone in 1992, then it was signed by Bush.

The above comment was unsigned. This begins comments added by a different user. There seems a lack of understanding the method through which treaties are signed and implemented in the US. This paragraph - "In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch." [11] - on the Senate's website, demonstrates the signing of the treaty and it's ratification would have occured on different dates. 67.158.175.250 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In turn, one must remember that NAFTA is not a treaty under U.S. law, since it did not receive a supermajority in the Senate (see Treaty_Clause#Full_text_of_the_clause). If it passed, it did not pass as a treaty, so the Senate's U.S. law website is rather irrelevant. 75.61.143.155 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
NAFTA was originally negotiated by Reagan in 1980. Drafted by the Heritage Foundation and signed with Mexico with Mexico as the FTA to be an instrument to break union and environmental regulations incorporated in US laws to include some going back to Nixon, it became NAFTA when Canada asked to be allowed in on the deal in 1985. Bush then took it over from Reagan and signed it on December 17, 1992 in a joint signing with Mexico and Canada acting in the role of President empowered to act as the agent of the United States. As a Free Trade agreement rather than a treaty it didn't require ratification, but when Clinton came into office he was lobbied by the steel workers union to correct what had been drafted by the Heritage foundation regarding labor and the environment. After a year of negotiation on Dec 8, 1992 he signed two supplements, one on labor and the other on the environment. 142.0.102.118 (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

## EZLN, EPR, cut wages, Crisis of 1994, poverty and the rest, why is there not a single mention of this anywhere?

I've read through this whole page, and while yes it has been expanded, quite alot too, there is a major lack in information about opposition to it. The whole thing goes on and on about the successes, and profits, but very little on impact and the less optimistic, yet very real effects of NAFTA. And its not that there small, its just that there ommited. And suspiciously about Mexico.

These include:

The poverty rate which although steady from 1984 to 1994 at 34% fell to 65% (some even put it as high as 75%

controversial rewriting of Article 27 of the Mexican constitution

The Mexican crisis of 1994

Drop in wages (20%+ in some areas)

AND OF COURSE: the EZLN rebellion in Chiapas. (Also note, one could add the EPR conflict with this as numerous declarations of theirs cite NAFTA as a key point of their movement)

Again, the are numerous arguements against so many parts of the agreement which arent even touched on here, it really gives a strong POV appearance to the whole article when so much important issues and facts arent mentioned. I'd like to know other peoples thoughts on the matter and if they would like to assist me in adding and changing portions of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red Heathen (talkcontribs) 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

The question is not whether there is or isn't criticism of NAFTA (in fact an well-referenced criticism section should be added to this article), but whether some of the issues mentioned above are true, or happen to be related to NAFTA at all.
• For starters, poverty rates have indeed fallen; as the article accurately portrays, and as it can be confirmed both by the World Bank 2004 report [12] (from 42.5% in 1995 to 26.3% in 2000 and decreased 7% between 2000 and 2004 to 19.3%) .Whether that is attributable to NAFTA or not, that is another matter (and a normative statement, unless a proper econometric analysis has been done). But the fact remains, poverty has indeed fallen, so we can't say poverty increased much less because of NAFTA.
• References 2 and 3 point out that there is absolutely no relation between NAFTA and the 1994 crisis (occurring less than a year after the treaty had come into effect), but to a depletion of the national reserves accompanied by an overvalued peso. (See: this publication by the Institute of International Economcis, p. 8 to 11 for reference). If there are economists that argue otherwise, and a reference can be provided, then, by all means, we should add that information. Until so, and based on the references available, we cannot claim there is a relationship between the 1994 crisis and NAFTA.
• Same source pages 45 shows an increase in real monthly income per worker comparing pre-NAFTA (1987) to 2003; real wages of maquiladora workers are 96.5% those of 1994, and those of non-maquiladora workers are 94.8% those of 1994. Nonetheless, the decrease is attributed to the crisis, given that since 1997 maquiladora real wage earnings have grown 28% [p. (which means that real wages do not follow a decreasing path, but had a sharp decrease caused by inflation, and then have experienced constant growth, which, arguably, imply that NAFTA didn't cause a fall in real wages [and some have argued NAFTA propelled recovery from the crisis]). Obviously, nominal wages are higher in any case. Same article shows that maquiladora real monthly income increased 15.5%.
• Regarding EZLN, we should definitely mention that they oppose any sort of free trade agreement and globalization.
--the Dúnadan 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

## "Branch plant economy" problem

In the "Controversies" section of this article, it says that "Some politicians have opposed free trade for fear that it will turn countries, such as Canada, into permanent branch plant economies." However, in the last paragraph of the branch plant economy article, it says the exact opposite: "[...]the North American Free Trade Agreement...may bring branch plants to an end." Which is it? Foxmulder 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

## Text removed from "Chapter 11" section

I've removed the following text (which required a citation anyways) as a comment was added to the article today which contradicted it.

"It has been a longtime fear of some Canadians that this provision gives large U.S. companies too much power [citation needed].

There was one case where a natural gas company in Nova Scotia which pumped from Sable Island wanted to sell cheaper gas to residents in the neighboring New Brunswick (both Canadian provinces), but threats of a lawsuit over Chapter 11 stopped these plans.[citation needed]

( this argument can't be from NAFTA, it's not a international dispute, they did build a pipeline and the issue might of been selling to Maine, USA, I live in the moncton area and they do sell gas here)"

I'll leave it up to the regulars as to how you wish to address this. --Ckatzchatspy 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

## Comment

Disappointing. NAFTA is a causing a major loss of manufacturing jobs in the US, and most of those workers are having to resort to low pay jobs. Everyone I talk to feels negative about NAFTA, so I question those poll results for the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.44.28.129 (talkcontribs)

You are entitled to your opinion and to question the results. But if you want to improve this article, it is better if you provide solid references besides your own opinion and the feelings of others. --theDúnadan 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The coverage of Canadian involvement in NAFTA is somewhat lacking in comparison to the coverage of US-Mexico relations and NAFTA related issues. Some more research should maybe be put into the Canadian side of NAFTA, 72.39.65.103 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The most notable issue for Canada has been Trans Canadas involvement with Keystone going back to Reagan and the Heritage foundation in 1985 seeking a way to break US unions like the steel workers and also environmental regulations. Trans Canada promised US steel that if NAFTA resulted in the US getting preferential treatment as a most favored nation then it could get contracts for drill pipe and also for the Keystone pipeline. After the deal was cut instead of hiring American workers for the pipeline work inside the US, Keystone 1 to Chicago, Keystone 2 to Oklahoma, Keystone 3 to Texas and Louisiana and Keystone IV which Obama has halted, Trans Canada brought 60,000 Canadian pipeline workers into the US under NAFTA to build the pipelines, pumping stations, storage facilities etc.142.0.102.118 (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

## Mexican Farmers

How does this line,

An influx of imports has lowered the prices for Mexican corn by more than 70% since 1994.

copied from #Impact on Mexican Farmers, relate to the recent news about famine and rising food prices because of the high demand of corn in biodiesel and ethanol? [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

It might need to be edited with an updated figure, as it seems Mexico would really like low prices right now.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Consumers would like lower corn prices, but what Mexican Producers want is a fair trading practice... What is happening is that the USA heavily subsidizes Corn production, driving small Mexican Farmers out of business. So we have come to the point where a relatively minor shortage of american corn has led to a very large price increase for tortillas in Mexico. 148.240.253.118 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above comment. I think FAIR has published some papers regarding the American subsidies and its effects on Mexico. They could be used as a source to insert the above statement in the article. --the Dúnadan 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the section as it seems to contradict itself. The second line states that the price of corn went up, while the fourth suggests prices dropped. It may be a matter of tweaking the wording, but I'll admit I don't know enough about what the actual situation is to do the repair myself. (It seems to have changed back and forth a few times recently.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A big question is if the rural Mexican farmers should be competing with the American farmers who have lower production costs even without a subsidy. There are many small farms producing only a few acres of corn which can not get economies of scale. To an end user the cost of production is only part of the end price. The other part is delivering the product and in Mexico the cost of shipment is higher. A good case can be made that the corn of small producers should be used within the same villages to make higher value added products. That way the farmers have a comparative benefit being close to the processor and local end users. Also what there is which is shipped to the Mexican urban market has a higher cost per pound and in terms of a per centage of end price more goes to the farmer and less goes to transportation.

## Categories

Are you guys collecting categories? I was looking for other Free Trade Agreements - a Category which is missing in the english wikipedia by the way - and what I saw was a bunch of useless categories. 62.226.67.234 08:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

## US Immgration table

Do we really need the US immigration table in this article? NAFTA is not only the US, you know. While it is related to the US, we could put a table about Mexican FTAs that includes NAFTA, or about Canadian politics. My point is, it takes so much space, and I find it unnecessary. A link from US immigration to NAFTA and viceversa could be useful, but the table gives the impression that NAFTA is all about the US and all about its immigration issues. --theDúnadan 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be deleted. In addition, I don't believe that any of the information on the history of immigration between Mexico, Canada, and the United States is necessary in this article except for possibly the 2-3 sentences that actually state anything about NAFTA's effect on immigration. The information should either be linked as See Also or moved to a new article if one does not exist. --Iliaskarim 01:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

## Flag

They should learn how to merge flags. The NAFTA flag looks like the second place in a kids drawing contest.

## Chapter 11

The last paragraph of the Chapter 11 section reads thus:

"Further, it has been argued that the chapter benefits the interests of Canadian and American corporations disproportionately more than Mexican businesses, which often lack the resources to pursue a suit against the much wealthier states."

The article itself is explained above like this:

"This chapter has been invoked in cases where governments have passed laws or regulations with intent to protect their constituents and their resident businesses' profits. Language in the chapter defining its scope states that it cannot be used to "prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter."

Isn't this information the opposite to what it should be? I thought that the article favours Mexico rather than Canada and America because the Mexican government has some additional protection against Canadian and American companies that wish to sue them. On the other hand, Canada and America may have some claim to defense against a Mexican company suing them, but isn't this much less likely given that Mexico can't always afford to sue Canada or America, as the article itself states? Forgive me if I just haven't seen something which is obvious, but this confuses me.

## chile

at present, is chile included? I heard that chile was included. Jackzhp 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

no, chile is not part of north america 24.91.16.229 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
rofl!149.4.115.3 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been following this article, I never have seen this point of view. It may require a cleanup here and there, but not a rewrite. As for sources, I think there are many through out. I have removed the tags. --statsone 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidudeman - the article should start by saying what the basic agreements actually are, rather than the supplementary agreements. --72.228.40.113 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have found useful a summary of the provisions of the Agreement, in addition to the supplementary information, analyses of impact, historical timeline, and other sections in the article. What I missed is an answer to the question, "What is NAFTA?". (My first post on Wikipedia - yay me!) Learningluvr (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

## Quebec a separate signatory?

That's what this guy claims (and so Quebec is protected as a member of NAFTA if it ever decides to "leave" Canada: [21]. Is there any evidence of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddsschneider (talkcontribs) 11:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the NAFTA site and found no evidence of Quebec signing the agreement. --statsone 14:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

## Disputes section

There's a Canadian disputes subsection under Criticisms and controversies, and then a Disputes section further down the page. Curiously, both sections contain identical information and even identical WORDING in some parts. Far be it from me to sit here and decide how this information should be organized, as I am not an experienced editor, but it seems to me that copy and pasting info into multiple sections only serves to clutter this article. Anyone agree? --Erd, 2 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.35.204 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Where? A little more specific? You could also try editing it yourself or post a test edit on this page. --statsone 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent kerfuffle in the Canadian Parliament, in the House of Commons Committee on International Trade over NAFTA and its proportionality agreements for energy. Prof. Gordon Laxer was a witness who said that ; this should be added into this article. (the hearings were for [22], but this was specifically about NAFTA.)

Links to his editorial (or you can link to the version that's at the Globe and Mail, or the one at the Council of Canadians website; they're all the same I believe): http://www.ualberta.ca/PARKLAND/research/perspectives/LaxerGlobe07OpEd.htm

Easterners could freeze in the dark

The U.S. has a national energy policy that emphasizes self-sufficiency, energy independence and domestic ownership. Why don't we?

by GORDON LAXER From Monday's Globe and Mail May 28, 2007 at 8:42 AM EDT

"Many Eastern Canadians heat their homes with oil. Western Canada cannot supply all of Eastern Canadian needs, because NAFTA reserves Canadian oil for Americans' security of supply. Canada now exports 63 per cent of the oil it produces and 56 per cent of its natural gas.

Those shares are currently locked in by NAFTA's proportionality clause, which requires us not to reduce recent export proportions. Mexico refused proportionality. Can Canada get a Mexican exemption?

Of course, we don't even have the pipelines to fully meet Eastern needs and, rather than address that domestic deficiency, five more export pipelines are planned.

Strategic reserves help short-term crunches, not long-term ones. Eastern Canadians' best insurance for a secure energy supply would be to restore the rule that was in place before the Free Trade Agreement ushered in the proportionality clause. This rule required that Canada have 25 years of proven supply before any export permit was approved."

Links to the Committee testimony (keep in mind that the transcript stops early because Chairman Leon Benoit illegally adjourned the meeting): http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/ciit/evidence/ev2934562/ciitev62-e.htm#Int-2073845

Western Canada can't supply all of eastern Canadian needs[who?] because NAFTA reserves Canadian oil for American security of supply. Canada now exports 63% of our oil and 56% of our natural gas. Those shares are currently locked in place by NAFTA's proportionality clause, which requires us not to reduce recent export proportions. Mexico refused proportionality; it applies only to Canada.99.245.173.200 09:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's another essay that has references for the Mexican corn problem with NAFTA and US subsidies for the "Impact on Mexican farmers", maybe someone can add it to resolve the citations needed tag. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cWk20Yky_QYJ:irpshome.ucsd.edu/faculty/gohanson/mexico_wages.pdf 99.245.173.200 09:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup of Previous Un-Named Poster with blockquote attributes applied to article from Laxer, _A separate Article Re-write should be done with improvements, as it stands, as of 2011, this article (main NAFTA) fails in many levels. Tiny Updates will not improve the overall articles POV ,and improve the readability. Perhaps it can be broken down to Components, then re-assembled as a typical Article would be , as iopposed to the current Al-In-One descriptive on One page.Richard416282 (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

## Effects on the middle class

I wonder if this should go into the article, under "effects of NAFTA":

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5755

Middle class incomes further behind since trade deal Tue 2 Oct 2007 | Printer friendly

OTTAWA – On the eve of the 20th anniversary of the negotiations of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NDP International Trade Critic Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) presented his analysis of the new figures from Statistics Canada that show a drastic increase in income inequality for most Canadian families since 1989. The statistics show that Canada’s top earners are making more while most ordinary Canadians are seeing a decrease in actual earnings. ...99.237.107.128 21:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hyperlink for The_North_American_Agreement_on_Labor_Cooperation in the first paragraph doesn't go anywhere. Very misleading as someone might be lead to believe there is more information about the NAALC. Either the page or section for NAALC needs to be created or the hyperlink removed. Jaylweb 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

## history of implementation section

i changed the following sentence: "There was considerable opposition in all three countries, especially among intellectuals and college graduates who stated that it was an ill-conceived initiative but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993." previously seemed to imply that there was some group of people united by their undergraduate degrees in opposing nafta. new phrasing implies more accurately that a set of intellectuals played in key role in the opposition to nafta.MrGears 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

## Milton Friedman is being incorrectly summarized in the contraversy section

The first paragraph under 'Criticism and Contravery' source is: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/fri0int-6 . Milton Friedman makes no mention of NAFTA being government managed trade, nor does he say it is not free trade and to me this entire paragraph looks like intentional mis-information/vandalism. In that source, Friedman does not say anything about bureaucracy, national sovereignty, or unelected international bodies. From that source: "If we are sensible, we certainly will go as rapidly as we can to expand NAFTA to include all of the rest of the Latin American countries." I think this entire paragraph should be removed from Criticism and controversies, but I would like a second opinion being that the paragraph has been there for over 6 months now...williameis (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph per WP:BOLD. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

## NAFTA is a very 'popular' organization

Popular? In terms of what? With the people? The governments? This either opinion, point of view, or simply inaccurate. 66.91.236.133 (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

## Original Research Keeps Getting Deleted! Why?

I thought this was the wiki that anyone could edit? I conducted original research in college using OECD data and covered a lot of interesting things on the topic: http://centrerion.blogspot.com/2006/02/impact-of-nafta-on-canada-introduction.html For some reason, the editor(s) of this page bitterly censor the link and keep removing it, when the research is original and interesting (plus it got good grades from my profs :P).

IMHO, whoever's doing the deleting just feels strongly about it, disagrees with something I wrote, and is censoring this to protect their point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.156.176 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research --Tobias (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

## The people of Mexico dies with the American corn.

I've noticed multiple edit summary references to the people of Mexico dies with the American corn. I can see how this could be especially relevant to a NAFTA article but I'm completely unfamiliar with the people of Mexico who dies with the American corn. Does anybody have more information about these people of Mexico and the American corn they dies with?Zebulin (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There exists a slim number of wikipedians who do not understand the idea of vandalism. "You can fool some of the people all of the time"-Abe Lincoln (psst he was talking about you) --mitrebox (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Doh! :( Zebulin (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

## Opening sentence

"The North American Free Trade Agreement [...] is the trade bloc in North America created by the North American Free Trade Agreement." Brilliant! -134.84.102.168 (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL dude thats horrible.. i would slap my dick with your mouth if you wrote that.


68.177.37.202 (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

## Current Controversy between Clinton and Obama

Someone should start a section that details this dispute along with the points and counter points they are making about NAFTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.254.1 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the United States Trade Representative issued a Press release pertaining to the "Myths" and "Facts" of NAFTA in March 2008, available at [23] This could be incorporated into any discussion, general or election-specific. -Herenthere (Talk) 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. NAFTA as a political wedge is a fascinating and diverse issue. 207.164.21.130 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well actually "BBC – The Ascent of Money" actually supported the claim that Mexicos debt was in fact a way of forcing NAFTA. Missingxtension (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

## Wrong Math, and unattributed statistics?

I generally don't trust statistics... especially unattributed statistics. Here's one reason why. From the section on the effects on trade:

"total trade between the United States and its NAFTA partners increased 129.3 percent (110.1 percent with Canada and 100.9 percent with Mexico)"

Is this possible? How can the percentage total increase be GREATER than the percentage increase in ANY of the component parts? If I double the number of five dollar bills in my pocket, and triple the number of ten dollar bills... and I ONLY have five and ten dollar bills... can this possibly quadruple the total amount of money in my pockets?

I would, of course, look at the attributions for the origin of these statistics... but apparently the entire section is completely unattributed. Hmmmm.... zadignose (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I write this as I sit in a business statistics course. Say you invest 5 dollars, and that 5 dollars makes another 5 dollars. The original 5 dollars made a total of 100%. If the 5 dollars you had invested made 8 dollars, for a total of $13, you would have made a total of 160%. A simplified equation is: ${\displaystyle percentage\ increase={\frac {current\ amount-original\ amount}{original\ amount}}}$ If this doesn't explain why the statistics work, please let me know. Infonation101 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Oop. I reread your post, and now I understand better what you were asking. Like you stated, there is no citation for that information, so I'm not quite sure how that would work? Infonation101 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Thank you. I see your formula is correct, but on review I think you saw that it addresses a different point. As for the text that's in the article now, I'll go ahead and remove it, as it is both unattributed and mathematically impossible. zadignose (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC) I don't see any disputes. You can watch if anyone tries to reinsert the information. Infonation101 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I think you want to multiply that equation by 100. Other then that it looks good. 207.164.21.130 (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Comparison of the facts to yield the true impact on the USA..... Can this page please be updated with the true statistical impact on the GDP and GNP of the USA? Furthermore include Mexico, Canada and whoever else Bush has granted a fuzzy one way trade agreement to with reference to NAFTA such as Peru. It is a tragedy that the mainstream media does not cover such topics, so please tune into the BBC and Lou Dobbs or even recite a variety of Latino publications from Central-South America. Something is clearly broken from the media to the borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.216.196 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) ## Conflict? As a first reader on this article I just dipped in - so feel free to shoot me down here. This article and the one on trade blocs seem to conflict. "It came into effect on January 1, 1994 and (as of 2008) it remains the largest trade bloc in the world in terms of combined GDP of its members." from the intro para to this article. However the statistics on the trade blocs overview article Trade bloc appear to indicate the EU (or EFTA depending on your POV) has a larger GDP than the NAFTA. Which is correct or which article needs clarification? Grible (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Nice catch. I'm not an expert, but I'll double check on this. Maybe someone else would like to do the same? Infonation101 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC) I've found this. If you take a look at 1.17 the total NAFTA trade in 06 was 1678.2 bil. Table 1.9 gives the full results, and it does appear that in 06 the EU was greater then NAFTA. I'll post this information on the discussion page of trade bloc. It looks like the updated information that needs to be put up. Infonation101 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind that. I shouldn't be editing so late. EU for 2006 was 1481.7 billion while NAFTA was 1678.2 billion. NAFTA is the largest. (table 1.9) Infonation101 (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC) ## Largest trade bloc claim The intro is misleading - while it is true that by PPP NAFTA is the largest trade bloc, by GDP it is second to the EU as measured by the IMF and the CIA. [24] So, though the intro is factually correct, it is misleading as the casual reader may not consider that by other measures, the EU is bigger. I suggest the intro be changed to either add the note about GDP, or by omitting the reference. As a way of comparison, on the EU page, though the size of the EU's economy is noted, there is no reference to its comparative size in relation to other trade blocs. And, the information box seems to contradict the information in the intro. There, the bloc is listed as 2nd on the PPP rank. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC) It would be misleading if the article made an unqualified claim that NAFTA had the largest combined GDP of any trade bloc but it is anything but misleading when it painstakingly qualifies it as a comparison of combined PPP GDP, especially with a wikilink to ppp for those unfamiliar with the concept. I rather think it is those articles which describe the EU as the largest economic bloc in the world without qualifying that comparison as restricted to nominal GDP which should be characterised as 'misleading'. The intro is the place for pointing out the most noteworthy information in a succinct manner. It is not the place for a treatise on the nuances of PPP vs nominal GDP usage.Zebulin (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC) You are confusing misleading and factually accurate. It is misleading because one is left with the impression that NAFTA is the biggest trade bloc in terms of its economy. It is, but only by one measure, and not by other measures. Further, to discover that NAFTA is not #1 by other measures, first one would click on "PPP" to discover that there are other measures, and it would have to occur to said clicker that there may be a difference in ranks. Then, he or she would have to go to the GDP page, add up the figures on the three charts before they discover that NAFTA is not bigger than the EU by at least one measure. It is true that the info is in the box, but the intro the way it is wouldn't draw you there - it would draw you to the PPP page. Which, as I also noted, needs the correction (#2 on PPP list). As for the EU page which makes the GDP claim that it is the largest trade bloc - as I said, the EU page makes no such claim. For consistency, neither should this page - or it should be qualified. Canada Jack (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Actually I'm not confusing those terms at all. I'm just not sharing your (rather odd) assumptions of what sorts of leaps a reader is apt to make from the intro. Consider what one would be likely to write if a trade bloc were indeed the largest in both nominal and PPP terms. One would succinctly leave the description unqualified. Likewise if a reader believes a trade bloc is the largest in the world by any economic measure then the reader would find it quite strange to see an article specify only nominal or PPP GDP. Why would a reader confronted with an article which qualifies the ranking as applying to PPP GDP assume that the ranking also applies to nominal? Why mention PPP at all if the ranking applies to both? If a reader is unaware of what PPP means with respect to GDP and refuses to click the link to enlighten themselves then it won't really matter what we write about nominal GDP rankings here that reader is not going to comprehend what is being said. The trade bloc chart does however make the comparison quite easy without the need to apply any maths as it colour highlights the top ranking trade bloc in each category.Zebulin (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC) I've tried to make the information easier for a casual reader to find and have corrected the erroneous infobox entry so that it matches the ppp list and the trade bloc article.Zebulin (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC) What is "odd" is that this is in the lead without a qualifying statement. And what is "odd" is your defence of this. The point is not to impress the one who would know the distinction between ppp/gdp etc., it is to clearly communicate to the casual reader that NAFTA is the biggest by some measures, but not all measures. As it stands it fails to do that, it gives the casual reader the impression that NAFTA is the biggest, period. Why would a reader confronted with an article which qualifies the ranking as applying to PPP GDP assume that the ranking also applies to nominal? The real question we have to ask at wikipedia is: Can we assume that a reader confronted with an article which qualifies the ranking as applying to PPP knows that there are other measures which might say otherwise? I say the answer is an emphatic "no." If the casual reader is not aware of the different measures he likely won't think to ask that question. It is not enough to be specific about the measurement you are using. It may imply there are other measurements, but that has to be explicit. If a reader is unaware of what PPP means with respect to GDP and refuses to click the link to enlighten themselves then it won't really matter what we write about nominal GDP rankings here that reader is not going to comprehend what is being said. You entirely miss the point. The casual reader may not be aware there are other measures. And would not be compelled to click on the link to discover there are other measures. By adding the qualifying statement "but not by some measurements of GDP" the casual reader can click on the links to see why there is a difference. Or, more simply, say "by some measures the trade bloc is the largest economic bloc..." Canada Jack (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The fact that NAFTA is the second largest trade bloc in the world by nominal GDP may be notable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. I'll add mention of this fact to the lead myself. I see other trade bloc articles that rank second in some measures see fit to mention this in their leads as well. This will also remove the need for us to agree on how readers will interpret the original wording.Zebulin (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) ## U.S. Deindustrialization Extremely biased. While there is a link to a larger page on the impact NAFTA has made on the United States Manufacturing industry, this part of the page should be as balanced as any other part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.171.30 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC) ## NAFTA userbox Hello! For those who support NAFTA, let me know what you think about this. Use it freely. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)  This user supports NAFTA. ## US Signatory The following sentence at the start of the article can not possibly be correct: "The agreements were signed in December 1992 by the leaders of the three countries (SNIP)and Bill Clinton of the United States but did not come into effect until January 1, 1994." Bill Clinton was not President of the United States in December of 1992, George H.W. Bush was. I think this should either say that Bush signed some preliminary form of the treaty before it was submitted to the US Senate, or Clinton signed it after it was passed by the US Senate.Gogh (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I fixed it and then someone changed it back. What gives? --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC) ## in the form of lower prices I'm sure there's plenty of badly-sourced material in this article, but my attention got drwan to this sentence, "Some argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis." There's a ref link at the end, but it's to a Cato Institute report which is about the financial crisis, not about the positive effects of NAFTA, never mind specifics like food prices. So, there's also a problem with "Some argue..." as weasel words. Anyway, it might be worth mentioning that lower food prices are good. That makes sense, so find someone who says it. That's different from saying that real income has risen specifically due to lower prices, especially food. That would need its own source. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) ## Urgent need to fix leaders, dates NAFTA was primarily negociated when George H.W. Bush was in office in the US and Brian Mulroney was in office in Canada. We even have a nice picture of them (and their chief negociators) signing one version of the agreement. Oct. 1992, note Bush and Mulroney. Now before the deal was finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the US and Kim Campbell in Canada. And before the deal became law, Jean Chretien had taken over in Canada. The lead butchers this chronology completely. I will attempt to fix it. Does anyone have anything to add? --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 23:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Reagan and the Heritage Foundation were interested in the FTA with Mexico as a way to break Caesar Chavez and the practice of migrant workers entering the US to pick crops; wherefore in 1980 as soon as Reagan was sworn in the Heritage Foundation began drafting the agreement. In 1985 Canada asked to get in and it became NAFTA. December 17, 1992 there was a trilateral signing with Bush as the President of the United States signing for the US. When Clinton came into office in January he was lobbied by the steelworkers to correct the terms drafted by the Heritage Foundation on labor and the environment and thus about a year later on December 8, 1993 he signed off on two supplemental agreements, one on labor and the other on the environment. 142.0.102.118 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ## Small error that needs correcting In the section "Travel and Migration" and the subsection "The United States and Mexico", the 2nd paragraph makes a statement about developments in early 2009. Obviously just a typo or something, as it is November of 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.22.80 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I have made a correction here. Since I don't know exactly how the original writer was trying to frame the paragraph, I have removed all reference to year from the beginning of that sentence. Robertbyrne (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) ## "Our" & "Ours" There is a quote in the first paragraph stating the following: "It also required our partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to ours." This sentence is a little misleading, and far from neutral. I would change it, but all of my proposed edits seem to make the context worse, so I have not altered or removed it. If it is a factual statement, then it is a relevant piece of information to include in hte article, but as it is written it assumes the writer and the reader are both American. Yakostovian (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Yakostovian Has since been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC) ## Updates This page is severely outdated with financial and economic figures dating back to 2006. Isn't there any new data to add to NAFTA? I also suggest merging this page with another Wiki page entitled Economy of North America --Yoganate79 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ## Second Term? The article states: "Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his second term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and "signing into law" to incoming president Bill Clinton" George HW Bush was a one term president, winning the 1988 election and losing the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. --Redleg3826 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Has since been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) It still uses the term ratification. Only treaties get ratified, Free trade agreements get signed and then implemented. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with NAFTA he added two protocols as supplements or amendments to the Rules of implementation to protect Labor and the Environment at the request of unions and environmentalists 142.0.102.177 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC) ## Dispute panels and problems in "lead section" This article desperately needs information on the dispute resolution panels. How they work (composition, place of meeting, etc.), what cases they're heard, what powers they have, and so on. Also the lead section goes into WAY too much detail about the US Senate vote. That should be saved for greater explanation further down. The lead should just indicate that: a) Bush I signed it but 2) it passed under Clinton. That's all, no editorializing about how "unusual" the vote was. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ## Mobility of persons The high immigration rates of Mexicans in USA that are legal are not due to NAFTA official work permits or similar, but other legal avenues (many Mexican families have been in USA for centuries but then again now they are officially American citizens). A worker in the European Union can work in other EU countries with few restrictions. The same cannot be said about NAFTA workers, example a Mexican plumber working in USA, or a Canadian welder working in Texas, or an American carpenter working in Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTMGO (talkcontribs) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) • As far as I know there are only two types of immigration, legal or illegal even if mexican immgration is mostly illegal but tolerated, it is not highly restricted and more importantly, U.S immigration law has nothing to do with NAFTA, you appear to be confusing the two. It is original research to compare the EU to the NAFTA since they are totally different in many ways, the EU is much more than a free trade agreement, you cannot turn this article into an essay wikipedia is an encyclopedia, your additions appear to be poorly sourced as well Thisglad (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Migration can take place without laws in place. Thus it would not be either legal or illegal. The topic here is the name of NAFTA, criticism on the name of NAFTA, which seems to be misleading according to the views of Adam Smith. You are right, immigration law and NAFTA are different things, I have never confused them. This is not original research as you claim... I placed an academic reference that compares EU to NAFTA, did you read it? It supports the point. I also put wikilinks to related topics, such as NAFTA mobility of persons, and labor mobility within EU, have you seen them?? They are sourced. I also put link to NAFTA documents, as well as to Adam Smith´s book. The plain English summary for you is: The name for the agreement is called NAFTA, NAFTA means north america free trade agreement. adam smith says free trade includes free mobility of workers. NAFTA does not allow free mobility of workers. So the name is criticised. In the EU, there is more mobility of workers than in NAFTA, the EU is many things, amongst them a trade bloc and the comparison with NAFTA is made. Hope that clears things up. --DTMGO (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) • the U.S government has also given work permits and even amnesties to some mexican illegals which further complicates your claims, if your own source states mexican immigration is surging to the U.S since NAFTA was signed, it directly contradicts your claim that NAFTA is highly restrictive towards labor movement, and that claim is unsourced, you post http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/89 as source for the claim of restricted movement of labor, please state which page number, section or paragraph in the NAFTA agreement that says labor is restricted Thisglad (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC) They are not my claims, it is all verified. You will not be able to find a place in NAFTA text where it says that worker movement is restricted precisely because worker movement is not included in NAFTA, as has been verified by Stiglitz, Nobel Price in Economics. Don't know what else you need.--DTMGO (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ## Conclusion The opening paragraphy of the Conclusion is a little absurd for an "encyclopedia" article. Telling me how a democracy should work doesn't belong in an informational article about NAFTA. This is not an op-ed piece. I'm removing the paragraph for now. Mcrawford620 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Even having a conclusion is a little odd for an encyclopedia. And how is that a conclusion? And that "Chapter 14" looks to me like someone put some talk into the article. And the overall article is still in bad shape. As of this moment, we've got five paragraphs about the negotiation and ratification of NAFTA, immediately followed by attempts at theorizing how the economies have been effected. Maybe sections on "Scope of NAFTA," "Enforcement of NAFTA," or "Changes brought in by NAFTA" might fit in between those two? I came here looking for a nice summary of what NAFTA directly impacts, and that "Conclusion" comes closest, but it's not in great shape. Also, can someone who can figure out what this is supposed to mean fix the grammar of this: "The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,[25] and by Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT")." 207.161.191.137 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged things to avoid having a "Conclusion" section, but the other points you raise also need attention. I definitely agree the article is incomplete with regard to what the actual provisions of the agreement are. -- Beland (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this article doesn't seem to explain very well what NAFTA is. We see that it is a removal of tariffs but I think quotas need to be discussed and maybe a table included for some industries. Also we have a criticisms section but not a benefits section. How can the article be considered NPOV when the largest section, over half, is admittedly one sided. Probably neither a criticisms or arguments for section are appropriate and if they do exist that need to be proportionally much smaller compared to true encyclopedic information than the criticisms section currently is. P.S. I don't care about posting conventions. I'm doing you a service reporting on what users would like to see. Take it or leave it. If wiki listened to its users instead of having retarded debates with them the quality of articles would improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.133.78 (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

## Mexican truckers

The article should discuss the dispute over allowing Mexican truckers into the United States. -- Beland (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

## Disputed claim removed

I removed the claim:

32% of all business in Canada was foreign owned and controlled as opposed to 0% in the United States.

given the argument in HTML comments:

-- Beland (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

## What is "monkeys of trade"

In the section entitled "Provisions", in the first sentence is this quote; "The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate monkeys of trade and investment...". What are monkeys of trade? Or is this some unusual editing being done to wiki? This sentence was seen on 11/11/09. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katacomb (talkcontribs) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

## Naming of NAFTA section and Chomsky's Views

This section is awful. Though I have some sympathy for someone trying to explain Chomsky's insane views, the current section doesn't even convey a simplistic summary of standard anti-free trade arguments. I would remove it altogether, but I'll leave that task to someone else. I have made some minor changes. Hope you like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsperla (talkcontribs) 07:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone reverted my external links cleanup as "blanking of legitimate material," I will now go through each on the talk page.

Removed because of WP:ELNO #1:

Removed because of WP:ELNO #13:

Removed because of WP:ELNO #16:

Removed because of WP:ELNO #19:

SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

## repeal article

who the * is deleting the repeal article.i have added it with link of fox news. happy now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a section mentioning ways in which NAFTA actually *restricts* free trade and free markets? When people see NAFTA, which is full of mixed provisions, and the harm that it has caused they automatically chalk that up to the free markets or free trade when in fact the causes are often government regulation itself (nothing "free" about it). Just the way the "Patriot Act's" name and its implications is important, the same goes for the North American "Free" Trade Agreement. This article does a good job of outlining some of the major points that this agreement was more corporatist than free-trade or "capitalist": http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-managed-trade-is-not-free-trade/# Let me know what you guys think. Fatrb38 (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As someone working in the imports/exports business, I can say that the rules of NAFTA origination are far too complex and time-consuming for a typical business to utilize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.32 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

## America

§ Is America Practicing Intentionally Losing Trade Policies & If So Why? Without a doubt, And as to motivation: The two single most damaging events in U.S. history were the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 [Which Hijacked The U.S. Monetary System] & the opening of trade with China under Nixon [Which Gutted America’s Manufacturing Sector & Created A Massive Trade Imbalance Which Has Systematically Siphoned Off Americas Wealth Creating The Unmanageable Debt Crisis Which Threatens To Collapse The Economy]. If America is to survive it is imperative that the FED be dismantled. In the pages of Modern Slavery I discuss exactly how this can be accomplished. Additionally the U.S. must withdraw from the WTO and all Free Trade Agreements such as NAFTA! Failure to accomplish these two objectives will without a doubt result in the economic collapse of the U.S. rendering us subject to being driven into The One World Dictatorship! If you drought this consider what Henry Kissinger had to say when campaigning for the passage of NAFTA "NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order." "What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system....a first step toward a new world order." 1993 - July 18: CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in The Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA

There can be no doubt that our Losing Trade Policies are intentional: What has been imposed on the U.S. under NAFTA is quiet simply reinstatement of the Colonial Free Trade System which we have long known invariably leads to economic ruination. According to Henry C. Carey, economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln: “It the British System is the most gigantic system of slavery the world has yet seen, and therefore it is that freedom gradually disappears from every country over which England is enabled to obtain control.” If one understands that the One World Government is to be modeled after China [which is a Hybrid Capitalist-Communist-Economy] then it is perfectly understandable as to why our leaders would inflict The Free trade System on us!

According to Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) in an interview with Human Events Dec. 4. 2006: “We practiced what I call ‘Loosing trade” –deliberately loosing trade- over the last 50 years. Today, other countries around the world employ what they call a value–added tax, in which foreign governments refund to their corporations that are exporting goods to the United States the full amount of their value-added taxes that that particular company pays in marketing a product…When American products hit their shores, they charge a value-added tax in the same amount. So they enact a double hit against American exporters. One is that they subsidize their own imports going out, and the second is that they tax us going in.[Tariff] The United States doesn’t do this.”

## Edit request from Sekine12, 22 June 2011

The values for GDP are wrong - should say billion, not trillion. I'm not old enough to change them yet, need to grow up another four days and ten edits...

Sekine12 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Trillion is correct. At Economy of the United States, you will see that the U.S. accounts for $14.7 trillion just by itself. –CWenger (^@) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) @Sekine May I know your native language? Perhaps this may explain what seems to be wrong here, but in fact is not. Tomeasy T C 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC) ## Impact on Mexican Farmers The opening paragraph has no mention of NAFTA, and no citations. Recommended for deletion. Here it is: In 2000, U.S. government subsidies to the corn sector totaled$10.1 billion. These subsidies have led to charges of dumping, which jeopardizes Mexican farms and the country's food self-sufficiency.
DOR (HK) (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

## File:NAFTA signing.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 An image used in this article, File:NAFTA signing.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

## What? No mention of Perot?

Shouldn't we mention his objection to signing NAFTA into law? It was a cornerstone of his ill-fated run for office in 1992. It's sort of become as synonymous with Ross Perot as "I'm all ears" and his "crazy old aunt in the basement". --The_Iconoclast (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

just added itCrazytalkerman (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The link to Naftanow.org gives only text that reads "Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)" Is there a proper link to this site out there, or has the site been taken down?

190.33.117.186 (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the article. It should have a secondary source to indicate significance and support the conclusion being drawn in the section.CFredkin (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

found some secondary source material as suggested. and CFredkin may be confused about Secondary sources. suggest s/he read up on the definition 66.225.168.181 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

## Ontario

I've removed a reference to NAFTA's impact on Ontario, since NAFTA is not mentioned in the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

## Mexico Canada United States are all AMERICAN, aren't they

In this quote:

[4] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[5]

Did President mean Canada jobs? Mexico jobs? United States jobs? Or, ALL American? Brazil is American, also, isn't it?

On this subject, care should be taken to identify specifically which country is the focus of a comment. I know it may be difficult to tell what was meant in past statements without knowing all of the context of the moment. But, in my opinion, without this clarification, Clinton's statement can be interpreted anywhere in the range from intentionally misleading to useless.

Willgb54 (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Will Johnston October 17, 2014

It's beyond obvious the President is referring to people in the United States of America. If you talk about Americans to people in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. they are going to take that is meaning people from the United States of America. Brazil is a South American country and internationally they are referred to as Brazilians the same way people from Canada are refer to as Canadians and people from Mexico are referred to as Mexicans. 67.234.70.80 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

## Largest trade bloc in terms of combined GDP

This statement is incorrect:

"In terms of combined purchasing power parity GDP of its members, as of 2013 the trade bloc is the largest in the world as well as by nominal GDP comparison."

The EU Customs Union–Mexico trade bloc has a combined PPP GDP of around $22 trillion. The NAFTA has a PPP GDP of only$20 trillion.

Rob984 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on North American Free Trade Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just checked this automated link archival, and can confirm the original links are dead. The last two archive links are functioning correctly, whereas the first two are no longer functioning. I will make an attempt to find an alternate source for the same. Vidurb (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on North American Free Trade Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just checked this automated link archival, and can confirm the original links are dead and the archive links are the same resources and are functioning correctly. Vidurb (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

## Move discussion in progress (2016)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nafta (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

## Bizarre removal of actual economic studies

Hi, I just added five studies on the impact of NAFTA on all signatories. These studies were removed without any justification by another editor. This same editor then asked me to waste my time justifying the inclusion of actual economics research on a wikipedia page on NAFTA! Never mind that the NAFTA wikipedia page is smack-full of non-academic, outdated and questionable sources. A book by politician Mel Hurtig is deemed an acceptable source when an article published by one of the most prominent experts on international economics, Gordon H. Hanson, is not. A 'Review of Economic Studies' (a top 10 journal according to IDEAS/RePEc) study by a Yale economist and Fed Reserve economist cited more than 200 times in less than two years' time is deemed unacceptable while an inaccessible MA thesis by some random person at Texas Tech is not. A 'Review of Economics and Statistics' (a top 25 journal according to IDEAS/RePEc) study is deemed unreliable when non-peer reviewed think tank papers and the talking points of organized interest groups are not.

This wikipedia page is a mess. Sorry for trying to improve it with, you know, actual academic research. No wonder it's a mess when nonsense is gladly accepted while any substantive improvements have to go through a bunch of veto points. I don't think I've experienced this zealous and incomprehensible editor vetoing on the inclusion of studies to wikipedia articles (which is mostly what I add) before. I hope you'll approve my edits and revert the other editor's reversals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you make a reasonable point about the other sources cited in the article. I've restored your edit without the 2nd and 3rd repetitions of this statement: A 2007 study found that NAFTA has "almost zero welfare impact on member and nonmember countries". OK?CFredkin (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. That's fine, though the 2007 study's application to Mexico and the US deserves a mention of some sort in the impact sections for those two countries and not just Canada's. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

## Legal Disputes section missing context

The second paragraph of the "Legal Disputes" section mentions "the duty" without any information about what duty it references. The subsequent sentences seem to imply that that this is related to some anti-dumping action, but there is little additional information. I assume that some portion of this section was removed, but I cannot find the edit to reconstruct the context. I move to either fix this paragraph or remove it until someone who knows what this was about can fix it.Rscragun (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe this relates to the softwood lumber dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.101.5 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph that gave context was removed for having weasel words instead of being fixed. It should be added, but in a cleaned-up fashion. Nutster (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

## Need information on origin rules

I do not think the typical reader will understand what it means to eliminate bilateral tariffs. The article gives the impression that products moving from one country to the other face no duties, and my understanding is that that is false in many cases. There are complicated rules about product origins that affect the rate at which imports are taxed. At least acknowledging this would be responsible. The typical reader probably wants to know generally what to expect when buying something on Ebay (and of course this article is not a substitute for consulting an attorney, but the mere fact that attorneys need to be involved in "free trade" seems worth mentioning).Rscragun (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

## Effect IGF poll

The sentence in the effect on the US section reads "In a survey of leading economists, 95% supported the notion that on average, US citizens benefited on NAFTA." It cites the Initiative on Global Markets, a free trade think tank, and their survey (or really a census) of their selected economists. I'm not sure the importance of such a source, much less as the opening of the section. What do folks think about removing it? --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The IGM surveys are credible and reliable. I don't see how IGM is a "free-trade think tank", by which you presumably imply that they're biased and the selected economists are neither experts nor reflect economist views. Anyone who knows anything about economics can see that the selected economists are diverse, both in methods, subfields and the views they hold. There can be zero doubt that the economists are among the best in the field by any conventional standard used (awards, citations, positions at universities etc.). Were they biased, they would not, for instance, have a free trade "skeptic" such as David Autor on the list. The IGM surveys are used to inform readers of econ textbooks and occur in research in top notch peer-reviewed journals, see for instance this recent study in the 'Journal of Politics' (a top 3 journal in the field of political science) that makes use of the IGM surveys: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/684629?journalCode=jop Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

## Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current "|established = January 1, 1994" to "|established = {start date and age|1994|1|1}" to correspond to the North American Free Trade Agreement's official founding date?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89(T·C) 06:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

General Critiques There is a lack of official resources in the maquiladoras of Mexico, and also there is a false conclusion when they come to the increment of the trades of goods and services between 1993 and 2011 because not everything is due to maquiladoras and NAFTA because there is more activities than that. Also there is a lack of information and consistent examples of how is it affecting Mexico in the present days. And how it efficiency has changed with the Great Recession and if the forecast they expected when it was implemented is accurate. There has to be a careful revision in the affirmation of Mexico as the country that has more graduated engineers per year. The source is from an opinion given in a newspaper from 2012 and has to be checked and updated.

In the other side, the effectiveness of the international law is appropiately understood in the development of the part of the analysis of the chapters. But at the same time in the begining it says that the agriculture topic is controversial, but it doesnt explains why they come to this conclusion it needs more explanation of hard facts. In other words, there is a lack of neutral coverage. Also, there is a unbalance in coverage due to a prominence in the U.S. information and development.

There is in general an issue framing in defining the evaluation of results because it isolates the NAFTA as the only international tool between this nations to trade and commerce. But also it needs to be more balanced in the actual facts and reunions that have been made between the North American region and in which approach have they been handling the agricultural and environmental problems; and why the country or countries got to that decision now that they know what the impacts and lack of equity are.YoalliAlfaro (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)