There is not much that can remain relevant for long periods of time – trade agreements must be constantly renegotiated to remain relevant over time. There is always room for improvement in any legislation, especially at a time when technology is moving as fast as it is. Supporters have capped NAFTA because it has opened up Mexican markets to U.S. companies like never before. The Mexican market is growing rapidly, which promises more export opportunities, which means more jobs. However, proponents have struggled to convince the American public that NAFTA would do more good than harm. Their main efforts have been to convince citizens that all consumers have as wide a choice of products at as low a price as possible, which means that consumers would be the main beneficiaries of lowered trade barriers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents the interests of small businesses, was one of THE most active supporters of NAFTA and organized small and medium-sized business owners and employees to support the agreement.
This support was essential to counter the efforts of organized work to put an end to the agreement. Since NAFTA was adopted, U.S. trade interests have often expressed very satisfaction with the agreement. Trade has grown strongly between the three NAFTA nations, but this increase in trade activity has led to growing trade deficits for both the United States with Canada and Mexico-;d the United States imports more from Mexico and Canada than it exports to these trading partners. Critics of the agreement argue that NAFTA is at least partly responsible for these trade deficits and the striking job losses in U.S. manufacturing over the past decade. But before NAFTA, manufacturing jobs were starting to shrink. The NAFTA debate continues. One of the most important provisions of NAFTA provided for the status of « domestic products » for products imported from other NAFTA countries. No state, province or local government could impose taxes or tariffs on these goods. In addition, at the time of the agreement, tariffs were either abolished or abolished in five or ten equal steps. The only exception to the exit was the issue of sensitive points for which the exit period would be 15 years.
According to a 2013 Jeff Faux article published by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other high-concentration manufacturing states were most affected by NAFTA job losses.  According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, the trade agreement has « lost or supplanted » some 682,900 U.S. jobs.  Recent studies have agreed with congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA has little influence on manufacturing employment and automation, accounting for 87% of manufacturing job losses.  On January 29, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the agreement between the United States, Mexico-Canada. Canada has not yet adopted it in its parliamentary body until January 2020. Mexico was the first country to ratify the agreement in 2019. When Bill Clinton signed the nafta law in 1993, he said the trade agreement signed « jobs. » U.S. jobs and well-paying American jobs. His independent opponent in the 1992 elections, Ross Perot, warned that fleeing jobs across the southern border would create a « great wake. » The former Canada-U.S.
free trade agreement was the subject of controversy and controversy in Canada and was touted as a theme in the 1988 Canadian election.