According to the Department of Homeland Security`s Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted to the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., DWT status) in fiscal year 2006 (October 2005 – September 2006). In addition, 17,321 family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the United States to obtain National Contract (TD) dependent status.  Since DHS counts the number of new I-94 arrival records completed at the border and TN-1 approval is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants with DT status staying in the United States at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of entries during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by the fact that some TN participants leave the country or change status before the expiration of their three-year admission period, while other immigrants who have already been admitted may change their status to TN or TD or renew previously granted TN status.) U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, foreign trade statistics. “New updates to 2005 data.” Available from www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/. Retrieved 17 April 2006. A 2015 study found that Mexico`s welfare increased by 1.31 percent due to NAFTA tariff cuts and Mexico`s intra-bloc trade increased by 118 percent.
 Inequality and poverty have decreased in the regions of Mexico most affected by globalization.  Studies from 2013 and 2015 showed that Mexican smallholder farmers benefited more from NAFTA than large farmers.   NAFTA is implemented in part by technical working groups composed of government officials from each of the three partner countries.  Post-NAFTA economic growth has not been impressive in any of the participating countries. The United States and Canada have suffered greatly from several economic recessions, including the Great Recession of 2007-2009, which overshadowed the positive effects that NAFTA could have had. Mexico`s gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a slower pace than other Latin American countries such as Brazil and Chile, and per capita income growth was also not significant, although there was a boom in the middle class in the years following NAFTA. A 2014 study on the impact of NAFTA on U.S. jobs and business investment found that the U.S.
trade deficit with Mexico and Canada grew from $17.0 billion to $177.2 billion between 1993 and 2013, displacing 851,700 jobs in the United States.  In 2008, Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico totalled $381.3 billion and imports amounted to $245.1 billion.  According to a 2004 article by University of Toronto economist Daniel Trefler, NAFTA brought significant net benefits to Canada in 2003, with long-term productivity increasing by up to 15% in industries that experienced the largest tariff reductions.  Although the decline in the number of low-productivity firms reduced employment (up to 12% of existing jobs), these job losses lasted less than a decade; Overall, unemployment in Canada has declined since the legislation was passed. Commenting on this compromise, Trefler said the crucial issue of trade policy is to understand “how freer trade can be implemented in an industrialized economy in a way that recognizes both the long-term gains and short-term adjustment costs of workers and others.”  Additional ancillary provisions have been made to address concerns about the potential impact of the Treaty on the labour market and the environment. Critics feared that low wages in Mexico would attract U.S. and Canadian companies, leading to a relocation of production to Mexico and a rapid decline in manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and Canada. Environmentalists, meanwhile, have worried about the potentially catastrophic effects of Mexico`s rapid industrialization, as the country has no experience in implementing and enforcing environmental regulations.
Potential environmental issues were addressed in the North American Convention on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. A free trade agreement between Canada and the United States was concluded in 1988, and NAFTA essentially extended the provisions of that agreement to Mexico. NAFTA was approved by the administrations of U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the Mexican President. Carlos Salinas de Gortari negotiated. A provisional agreement on the Pact was reached in August 1992 and signed by the three Heads of State or Government on 17 December. NAFTA was ratified by the national legislators of the three countries in 1993 and entered into force on January 1, 1994. The decisions of the Chapter 19 committees could be challenged before a NAFTA Extraordinary Challenges Committee. However, an extraordinary appeal panel did not act like an ordinary appeal.
 Under NAFTA, it rescinded a decision or remanded it in custody only if the decision contained a material and material error that threatens the integrity of the NAFTA dispute settlement system. Since January 2006, no NAFTA party had successfully challenged a Chapter 19 decision before an extraordinary challenge panel. Although NAFTA did not deliver on everything its supporters had promised, it remained in force. In 2004, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) extended NAFTA to five Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua). In the same year, the Dominican Republic joined the group by signing a free trade agreement with the United States, followed by Colombia in 2006, Peru in 2007 and Panama in 2011. According to many experts, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), signed on October 5, 2015, represented an extension of NAFTA on a much larger scale. What is clear is that NAFTA remains a lightning rod for political views on globalization and free trade in general. Opposition to NAFTA has grown and made it much more politically difficult to adopt other similar free trade agreements. This was clearly demonstrated in the summer of 2005, when the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) stagnated in Congress due to a lack of support. .