Another mistake with regard to the free trade pact is that only certain states will benefit from increased trade with Mexico. However, a June 1993 Heritage Foundation study shows that NAFTA will benefit the country as a whole, not just one or two specific regions. According to the study, at least 40 of the country`s 50 governors support the agreement, with the rest undecided. Their confidence in NAFTA is based on the fact that exports from most countries to Mexico have already increased sharply over the past five years. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that virtually every country in the country has benefited from increased trade with Mexico, with each region of the United States recording a sharp increase in exports to Mexico last year. According to them, 31 countries doubled their exports to Mexico, while 15 tripled their exports. In fact, industrial central-west — an important country for NAFTA opponents such as Democratic MPs David Bonior of Michigan and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio — has seen a 90% increase in exports to Mexico since 1987. Wisconsin, an increase of 247 percent; Ohio, an increase of 188 percent; Indiana, a 30 percent increase; And Michigan, a 32% increase. Not only are none of these other countries a member of NAFTA, but none have a free trade agreement with the United States. It would also take a toll on U.S. export growth and employment.

Mexican political forces would almost certainly push the Mexican government to take retaliatory supplements by erecting new trade barriers for American products. As a result, many of the 700,000 jobs currently dependent on trade with Mexico would be at risk. According to U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor, that number would reach 900,000 by 1995 if NAFTA were adopted. However, if NAFTA were to be rejected, it would fall to 500,000. In other words, a rejection of the free trade pact could cost America 200,000 jobs, hampering the U.S. economic recovery. Even more jobs in the United States would be lost if other Latin American countries withdrew to protectionism in response to a NAFTA defeat — a perfectly plausible scenario.