There are many approaches to studying the impact of trade agreements on migration, and this report is based on different perspectives. The volume of trade that the United States has with its major trading partners is correlated with the number of foreign entries from those countries to the United States, whether or not there is a free trade agreement. In the years following the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (later NAFTA), studies on the consequences of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have shown upward trends in the temporary migration of entrepreneurs and professionals between the United States and Canada. Another set of analyses showed that the number of U.S. residents born in Mexico, who report arriving in the country in the years following NAFTA`s entry into force, is considerable and resembles the „migration bump“ predicted by economists. However, many factors other than NAFTA have had a decisive impact on this development of migration in Mexico. In analysing the permanent migration flows between the two countries, Globerman found that the patterns of permanent migration in the 1980s and 1990s were fairly consistent. Mr. Globerman concluded that trade liberalization in itself has had little impact on permanent migration between the United States and Canada. Although the extent of permanent electricity did not change significantly, the composition of immigration appeared to be slightly altered. In particular, Globerman found some evidence that professional and executive workers accounted for a larger share of U.S.
immigration and a smaller portion of U.S. emigration during the study period.33 As in the United States and Mexico, NAFTA failed to deliver on the most extravagant promises of its Canadian boosters, nor did it push the worst fears of its opponents. The Canadian auto industry has complained that low Mexican wages have driven the country`s jobs. When General Motors dismantled 625 jobs at an Ontario plant in January and transferred them to Mexico, Unifor, the country`s largest private sector union, held NAFTA responsible. Jim Stanford, an economist working for the union, told CBC News in 2013 that NAFTA had caused a „production disaster in the country.“ The INA does not require companies wishing to bring intracompany transfers to the United States to meet all labour market tests (for example. B to show that the United States proves it.