NAFTA Argumentative Essay

The grandeur that surrounded NAFTA certainly gave a convincing promise: the opportunity to expand an ever-growing U.S. economy, strengthen ties with neighboring countries, and campaign for the freedom of democracy in capitalism throughout North America. Even after the immediate redistribution of jobs leaving the United States and giving Mexico a new-found job market to feed the rampant unemployment that weaved throughout cities large and small, hope still found its way into the hearts of Americans. They were praying for a turn of the tide in the trade agreement that promised so much but had delivered so poorly. Given the prior trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, the only country still developing, became the center of attention.
They concluded that while wages had increased, the increases were relative and the difference between them remained the same over the years of the study (Clemens, M. (2015, March 17)). The argument also stands that Mexico would have still developed over time into an industrialized country, NAFTA just quickened the process. Given the detriments to the U.S. economy to simply speed up the industrialization of Mexico, it is difficult to say that the benefits outweigh the costs. Not only did job loss and wage stagnation occur, but the trade balance also shifted. In 1993, the U.S. had a $1.7 billion trade surplus, but in 2013, trade had shifted to benefit Mexico in the amount of $54 billion (Mcbride, J., & Sergie, M. A. (2017, January 24)). Along with the trade deficit, immigration from Mexico to the United States has become a severe problem due to high unemployment rates. Though illegal immigration has not been as rampant in recent years, over half a million Mexican workers without a job migrated to the United States after NAFTA was enacted (Mcbride, J., & Sergie, M. A. (2017, January