NAFTA Argumentative Analysis

453 Words2 Pages
Brian Satterlee (2014) states that “Regional integration is the process whereby countries remove barriers to trade between themselves” (p. 182). With this in mind, many countries have formed agreements with other countries, especially those that are in close proximity and have the degrees of economic integration such as a free trade area, custom union, common market, economic union, and political union. Even though there are other regional agreements, one of the most proponent agreements is the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Initially, the U.S. and Canada established free trade agreement called CFTA, The Canadian Free Trade Agreement, that “allowed the trade of agriculture between the two countries” and after several years, Mexico and Chile joined the agreement to form NAFTA (Satterlee, 2014, p. 187). While proponents of the agreement claim that…show more content…
2). Martin & Wingrove’s article discusses the unlikely comradery between Canada and Mexico on an expanded approach that allows the countries to recognize that if they are co-joined, they may be able to circumvent any disparities with the U.S., specifically with the new president. There are plans for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to begin negotiations in a couple of weeks regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement. Each country will have an agenda. President Trump (U.S.) wants to protect American jobs and Canada wants to ensure that agricultural trade is environmentally safe and there is no restriction on labor. On the other hand, Mexico has to deal with the proposed border wall. While these issues are relatively simple on paper, they are far more complexed in the economic and political
Open Document