While thousands of U.S. auto workers have undoubtedly lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA, they may have done worse without them. By integrating supply chains throughout North America, maintaining a significant portion of U.S. production has become an option for automakers. Otherwise, they may not have been able to compete with their Asian rivals, resulting in the loss of additional jobs. „Without the ability to relocate low-wage jobs to Mexico, we would have lost the entire industry,“ UC San Diego economist Gordon Hanson told the New York Times in March 2016. On the other hand, it may not be possible to know what would have happened in a hypothetical scenario. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the Trump administration`s goal was to „stop the haemorrhages“ of trade deficits, plant closures and job losses, pushing for tougher labor and environmental protection measures in Mexico and removing „Chapter 19 of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism“ – a Canadian favorite and a thorn in the side of the U.S. wood industry. NAFTA is often held responsible for things that could not be its fault. In 1999, the Christian Science Monitor wrote about a town in Arkansas that it would „collapse, like so many NAFTA ghost towns that have lost jobs in the needle trade and in production in places like Sri Lanka or Honduras.“ Sri Lanka and Honduras are not parties to the agreement.
A „secondary agreement“ reached in August 1993 on the application of existing domestic labour law, the North American Convention on Labour Cooperation (NAALC) , was severely restricted. With regard to health and safety standards and child labour law, it excluded collective bargaining issues, and its „control teeth“ were only accessible at the end of a „long and painful“ dispute.  The obligations to enforce existing labour law have also raised questions of democratic practice.  The Canadian anti-NAFTA coalition Pro-Canada Network suggested that guarantees of minimum standards in the absence of „extensive democratic reforms in the [Mexican] courts, unions and government“ would be of no use.  However, subsequent evaluations indicated that NAALC`s principles and complaint mechanisms „created a new space for princes to form coalitions and take concrete steps to articulate the challenges of the status quo and promote the interests of workers.“  A 2007 study showed that nafta had „a significant impact on the volume of international trade, but a modest impact on prices and well-being.“  The OBJECTIVE of NAFTA was to remove barriers to trade and investment between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 resulted in the immediate removal of tariffs on more than half of Mexican exports to the United States and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.-Mexico tariffs should be eliminated, with the exception of some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico, which are expected to expire within 15 years.  Most of the trade between the United States and Canada was already duty-free. NAFTA also aimed to remove non-tariff barriers and protect intellectual property rights on marketed products. A review of the 2001 economic outlook of the existing literature showed that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico.
 In 2003, 80% of Mexico`s trade was with the United States alone. The trade surplus combined with the deficit relative to the rest of the world has led to a dependence on Mexico`s exports. These effects were reflected in the 2001 recession, which led to either a low rate or a negative rate of Mexican exports.  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into force in 1994 and created a free trade area for Mexico, Canada and the United States