# North American Free Trade Agreement **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202 "2019-12-21T21:53:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mike\_Mabes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mike_mabes/32/1782_2.png) [@Mike\_Mabes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Mabes)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/1 "2019-12-21T21:53:59Z")
Well I guess Trump got something done. Or did he? Does this turn “America’s worst deal” into a “wonderful” agreement? I read a bit about it, and as a Trump hater, immediately seized on the negatives. It does add some good things, but is it really a big deal? I ask because, the next time I get into an argument with a Trumper, I want to have my facts straight. Don’t want to let my personal biases get in the way. Don’t want to be that person who is against anything Trump does. Even the worst Presidents (and he is the worst ever, by such a margin that it can’t be measured) sometimes get things done. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2019, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/2 "2019-12-21T22:23:34Z")
It’s primarily a necessary update of NAFTA, as it addresses things like the internet that didn’t exist when it was originally passed. It’s hardly a rewriting of trading principles, or something that wasn’t already in the works. So, yay for a minimum level of executive competency, I guess. > **[Opinion | USMCA is a needed upgrade from NAFTA. Let’s get it passed.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/usmca-is-a-needed-upgrade-from-nafta-lets-get-it-passed/2019/09/09/c31e1862-d015-11e9-b29b-a528dc82154a_story.html?outputType=amp)** > > So many jobs and livelihoods are at stake. > [@](#): > > It’s been 25 years since we entered into NAFTA, and it must now be updated to reflect our 21st-century economy. > For example, billions of dollars in trade occurs over the Internet every day, but unlike our more modern trade agreements, NAFTA contains no provisions to ensure an open and secure digital economy. The USMCA corrects that by easing customs burdens for small businesses — especially those that sell online — that export small value products to Canada and Mexico. It also prohibits data localization and tariffs on data, key things that keep our Internet economy moving. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/3 "2019-12-22T08:49:06Z")
Trump lost all credibility on trade when he kept pushing the narrative that, for example, if a Canadian sells something to an American and the Americans pays $1000, the American has therefore lost or been cheated out of $1000. Well, lost credibility with anyone intelligent. The idiots just lapped it up. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/4 "2019-12-22T14:14:02Z")
The differences between NAFTA 2 and NAFTA 1 are not especially significant. It’s a modernization but will not affect, in any substantial way, the likelihood of the USA running a trade deficit with Mexico or Canada. ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/5 "2019-12-22T16:17:41Z")
> [@Mike\_Mabes](#): > > Well I guess Trump got something done. Or did he? Does this turn “America’s worst deal” into a “wonderful” agreement? I read a bit about it, and as a Trump hater, immediately seized on the negatives. It does add some good things, but is it really a big deal? I ask because, the next time I get into an argument with a Trumper, I want to have my facts straight. Don’t want to let my personal biases get in the way. Don’t want to be that person who is against anything Trump does. Even the worst Presidents (and he is the worst ever, by such a margin that it can’t be measured) sometimes get things done. For the most part, it’s just an update of NAFTA, just like updating any deal that’s old and needs tweaks. It wasn’t some monumental change in trade relations with Mexico and Canada. There are some good things in here though, and it should be ratified. I also despise Trump. But on this one, I’m not seeing any reason to oppose the deal. It was passed by congress as a fairly bipartisan measure, too, if that matters to you. > **[USMCA, Trump’s new NAFTA deal, explained in 600 words](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/3/17930092/usmca-mexico-nafta-trump-trade-deal-explained)** > > The trade deal between Canada, Mexico, and the US officially goes into force July 1. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/6 "2019-12-22T22:33:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Trump lost all credibility on trade when he kept pushing the narrative that, for example, if a Canadian sells something to an American and the Americans pays $1000, the American has therefore lost or been cheated out of $1000. I tend to ignore stuff like this, so can you post a link to a credible source that describes what you’re talking about? I’m not saying that you are posting nonsense, only that the message sounds like nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/7 "2019-12-22T22:46:14Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > I tend to ignore stuff like this, so can you post a link to a credible source that describes what you’re talking about? I’m not saying that you are posting nonsense, only that the message sounds like nonsense. Well, let’s go right to the wellspring, shall we? Arguably the opening salvo in Trump’s trade wars was [his tweet of March 2nd, 2018:](https://twitter.com/i/events/969519906097106944?lang=en) > [@](#): > > When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy! The U.S. is _losing_ billions? Isn’t it more accurate to say the U.S. is _spending_ billions, to get things from other countries that the U.S. wants? And the U.S. will “win big” by cutting off trade entirely? If there was a time when Trump’s position evolved into something less stupid, I must have blinked and missed it, because as far as I can tell, he never wavered off the idiot path. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/8 "2019-12-22T23:14:00Z")
He also made a legal finding of fact that Canada is a threat to the national security of the United States. This wasn’t just political hot air. He needed to make that legal finding to have the legal authority under US law to impose tariffs Canadian-made steel, which he then did. So when Americans talk about their “allies” I reply that Canada is no longer an ally, based on your government’s legally binding declaration. We may have military and trade obligations with you (for now, until your President decides to tear them up, which is a reasonable possibility, given his reluctance to endorse Article 5 of the NATO treaty) but if we’re a threat to your national security we can’t be considered an ally. > **[Lighthizer calls Canada a national security threat in defence of steel tariffs](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-lighthizer-calls-canada-a-national-security-threat-in-defence-of-steel/)** > > Under pointed questioning from a Senate committee, U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer is testifying today about the administration’s trade policy and 2019 budget ---
**Author:** ![survinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@survinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/survinga)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/9 "2019-12-23T12:50:09Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > He also made a legal finding of fact that Canada is a threat to the national security of the United States. This wasn’t just political hot air. He needed to make that legal finding to have the legal authority under US law to impose tariffs Canadian-made steel, which he then did. > > So when Americans talk about their “allies” I reply that Canada is no longer an ally, based on your government’s legally binding declaration. We may have military and trade obligations with you (for now, until your President decides to tear them up, which is a reasonable possibility, given his reluctance to endorse Article 5 of the NATO treaty) but if we’re a threat to your national security we can’t be considered an ally. > > [Lighthizer calls Canada a national security threat in defence of steel tariffs - The Globe and Mail](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-lighthizer-calls-canada-a-national-security-threat-in-defence-of-steel/) Trump generally hates our allies. It’s amazing how he’s shredded our alliances with Canada, and most of Europe. The only allies that he seems to “like” are Japan, and that’s because Abe praises him so much. Perhaps, he doesn’t hate the UK as much as the others, because they have their own hard-right movement that’s powered by similar concerns as Trumpism. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/10 "2019-12-23T14:42:53Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > He also made a legal finding of fact that Canada is a threat to the national security of the United States. No he did not. The President does not make legal findings of facts. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/11 "2019-12-23T23:05:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Trump lost all credibility on trade when he kept pushing the narrative that, for example, if a Canadian sells something to an American and the Americans pays $1000, the American has therefore lost or been cheated out of $1000. > > Well, lost credibility with anyone intelligent. The idiots just lapped it up. Neither Trump nor anyone else said any such thing. I’m all for free trade, but the argument from the opponents is that for every $1000 of goods that an American buys from Canada, then a Canadian should buy $1000 of goods from an American. Nobody said anything about people being “cheated” in these transactions. That’s not even a strawman; it’s demonstrably an incorrect argument. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/12 "2019-12-23T23:59:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Neither Trump nor anyone else said any such thing. I’m all for free trade, but the argument from the opponents is that for every $1000 of goods that an American buys from Canada, then a Canadian should buy $1000 of goods from an American. Nobody said anything about people being “cheated” in these transactions… Do you really mean to say neither Trump nor any Trumpists have said the USA is being cheated on trade? Really? ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/13 "2019-12-24T01:11:28Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Do you really mean to say neither Trump nor any Trumpists have said the USA is being cheated on trade? Really? Doubters may gargle [Trump America cheated on trade](https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+america+cheated+on+trade) for some. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/14 "2019-12-24T05:54:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Neither Trump nor anyone else said any such thing. Heh… wrong. And surprisingly ignorant of Trump’s many remarks on the topic. > [@](#): > > I’m all for free trade, but the argument from the opponents is that for every $1000 of goods that an American buys from Canada, then a Canadian should buy $1000 of goods from an American. Nobody said anything about people being “cheated” in these transactions. That’s not even a strawman; it’s demonstrably an incorrect argument. Well, let’s be clear; is it your contention that there is no case of Trump _specifically naming the precise amount of $1000 in a complaint about U.S. trade with Canada?_ That’s a somewhat different standard than “any such thing” (see above). I’ll cheerfully admit using a paraphrase while capturing perfectly the attitude and misconceptions expressed by Trump that a trade deficit (or even just a trade _purchase_) represents a loss to the U.S. and/or the U.S. being cheated, somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/15 "2019-12-24T11:51:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The U.S. is _losing_ billions? Isn’t it more accurate to say the U.S. is _spending_ billions, to get things from other countries that the U.S. wants? And the U.S. will “win big” by cutting off trade entirely? If there was a time when Trump’s position evolved into something less stupid, I must have blinked and missed it, because as far as I can tell, he never wavered off the idiot path. Oh, I thought I’d mentioned credible source. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/16 "2019-12-24T13:23:07Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No he did not. The President does not make legal findings of facts. Yes, he does. When the Congress wants to give the President some discretionary power under a statute, it’s usually predicated on the President having to make a finding of fact in relation to the exercise of that power. That finding of fact is a condition precedent to the President being able to exercise the statutory power delegated to him by Congress. In the case of tariffs, the President doesn’t have _carte blanche_ to set tariffs or to impose new tariffs. He can only do so if the Congress has given him a statutory power with regard to tariffs, and only if he then makes a finding of fact that the condition for exercising that statutory power have been met. In the case of the steel tariffs, the President originally addressed the issue in [Presidential Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-steel-united-states/). After commenting that the Secretary of Commerce had reviewed the issue of steel imports and found that the imports posed a threat to the national security of the United States, the President stated: > [@The President](#): > > 1. **I concur in the Secretary’s finding that steel articles are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States** , and I have considered his recommendations. That was a necessary finding of fact for him then to impose tariffs on steel imports, under the statutory powers given to him by Congress. He originally exempted Canada and Mexico from the tariffs, but the next month, he issued another proclamation which ended that exemption, effective June 1, 2018. In [Presidential Proclamation April 30, 2018](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-adjusting-imports-steel-united-states-3/), he stated: > [@The President](#): > > 1. The United States is continuing discussions with Canada, Mexico, and the EU. **I have determined that the necessary and appropriate means to address the threat to the national security posed by imports of steel articles from these countries is to continue these discussions and to extend the temporary exemption of these countries from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705** , at least at this time. In my judgment, and for the reasons I stated in paragraph 10 of Proclamation 9711, these discussions will be most productive if steel articles from these countries remain exempt from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705. > > 2. For the reasons I stated in paragraph 11 of Proclamation 9711, however, the tariff imposed by Proclamation 9705 remains an important first step in ensuring the economic stability of our domestic steel industry and removing the threatened impairment of the national security. As a result, **unless I determine by further proclamation that the United States has reached a satisfactory alternative means to remove the threatened impairment to the national security by imports of steel articles from Canada** , Mexico, and the member countries of the EU, the tariff set forth in clause 2 of Proclamation 9705 shall be effective June 1, 2018, for these countries. Those are factual findings by the President that steel imports from Canada posed a threat to the national security of the United States. Those determinations weren’t just political puffery. They were legal findings of fact, a condition precedent to exercising his statutory power to impose tariffs on Canadian steel effective June 1, 2018, because of his factual finding that Canadian steel posed risks to the national security of the United States. And, the courts tend to give considerable deference to those legal findings of fact by a President, even though they are in the exercise of statutory powers. That deference is very high in the areas of national security and international relations. A similar issue arose in the travel ban on individuals from Muslim countries. In order to impose that ban, the President had to make a finding of fact that alien entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Only if he made that finding could he then exercise the statutory power delegated to him by Congress. The Circuit Court found that the travel ban exceeded his statutory authority, but the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 split, upheld it. Applying the standard of rational basis review, the Court found that the Presidential order was within his statutory powers, as summarized by the wiki article, [Trump v Hawaii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii): > [@](#): > > The only prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find” that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S. “The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” the Supreme Court ruled. Trump acted within his powers, according to Roberts. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/17 "2019-12-24T14:01:13Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > Oh, I thought I’d mentioned credible source. :rolleyes: Quoting Trump saying something dumb about a subject to demonstrate that Trump is dumb about that subject is not “credible” enough for you? Does water has to make the case for its own wetness, too? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/18 "2019-12-24T14:17:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Quoting Trump saying something dumb about a subject to demonstrate that Trump is dumb about that subject is not “credible” enough for you? > > Does water has to make the case for its own wetness, too? This is an interesting new turn for Trump supporters: Defense of Trump by claiming whatever comes out of his mouth is not credible. It’s diabolically twisted and idiotic, but it just might work. Trump2020- Incredible! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/19 "2019-12-24T14:43:08Z")
Well, Trump, y’know… he’s serious but not credible. Or credible but not literal. Or literal but not serious. It’s one of those rock-paper-scissors things. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202/20 "2019-12-24T15:11:41Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Yes, he does. > > When the Congress wants to give the President some discretionary power under a statute… That is not a “legal finding of facts,” a thing that happens only in courts. Congress does not make legal findings of facts, and so cannot hand that power to the President. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/north-american-free-trade-agreement/845202.md?page=2)