Jump to content

Talk:North American Free Trade Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrGears (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 10 November 2007 (→history of implementation section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

American/Mexician boarder 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excellent suggestion. I got us started :-) --Iliaskarim 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Flag Replacement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NAFTA.png (please someone with more skill than me make a better one, but the gif sucks pretty bad)Clperez390 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


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 [11] (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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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? [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

good job

this article is good just giving props to all that worked on it--The brown curse 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

no, chile is not part of north america 24.91.16.229 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Shape, Rewrite?

This article is in pretty bad shape. After reading it I know little more about NAFTA than when I started, nothing. I find this article very confusing and unsourced. This article would benefit greatly from a basic rewrite. What does everyone think of this? Please add some input here. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [20]. Is there any evidence of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddsschneider (talk • contribs) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proportionality agreements about Canadian energy / Mexican corn

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 SPP, 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 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement&oldid=170477952"