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. Sixth, the agreement provided business travellers with easy access to all three countries. Overall, NAFTA has not been devastating or transformative for the Canadian economy. Opponents of the 1988 free trade agreement warned that Canada would become a glorified 51st state. While this has not been done, Canada has also not closed the productivity gap with the United States. According to the OECD, the country`s GDP per hour worked was 74% of U.S. GDP in 2012.
On August 27, 2018, Mr. Trump and Mexico agreed on a bilateral trade agreement to replace NAFTA and threatened to ignore Canada. Canada joined on September 30, 2018. On November 30, 2018, the three countries reached an agreement. The new agreement is called the agreement between the United States, Mexico-Canada and has been ratified by the legislative branch of each country. Mexico ratified it on June 19, 2019. The United States ratified the agreement on January 29, 2020. The Canadian Parliament ratified the USMCA on March 13, 2020. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, who opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, called it “a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and normal, long-term trade relations with China.” He believes that free trade agreements have led to the loss of American jobs and lower U.S.
wages. Sanders said America needs to rebuild its production base with U.S. factories for well-paying jobs for the U.S. workforce, instead of relocating to China and elsewhere.    Finally, NAFTA created the framework for trade in North American countries. Although the creation of the Free Trade Agreement has had good and bad results, there is no question of the increase in cross-border trade. It is clear that NAFTA continues to improve political views on globalization and free trade in general. Opposition to NAFTA has intensified, making it much more politically difficult to adopt other similar free trade agreements. This became clear in the summer of 2005, when the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) stopped in Congress because of a lack of support. Two journalists, Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan J. Higuera, who wrote in the Arizona Republic on the tenth anniversary of NAFTA, summed it up this way: “The reality of NAFTA at 10 years old is this: a story of winners and losers, divided largely by the workplace and what we do.” The same goes for the impact of NAFTA on small businesses.
For some, it was an opportunity to grow and for others it was a challenge. Clinton signed it on December 8, 1993. The agreement came into force on 1 January 1994.   At the signing ceremony, Clinton paid tribute to four people for their efforts to reach the historic trade agreement: Vice President Al Gore, Council of Economic Advisers Chair Laura Tyson, National Economic Council Director Robert Rubin and Republican Congressman David Dreier.  Clinton also said, “NAFTA means jobs.