From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Jason Hopkins

Human smugglers are reportedly urging migrants to rush into the United States before President-elect Donald Trump comes back into power, according to the Wall Street Journal

Migrants across Latin America are being told by smugglers that the time is now to reach the U.S. southern border before Trump enters office and embarks on his hardline immigration agenda,  according to a report by the WSJ. Officials on the U.S. side of the southern border told the Daily Caller News Foundation that they are bracing for the possibility of a last-minute migrant surge before inauguration day.

“I am deeply concerned about the potential for a surge at our southern border as we near the end of President Biden’s term,” San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, who represents a district by the California-Mexico border, stated to the DCNF. “With the Trump Administration signaling that it will prioritize stricter immigration enforcement, many individuals seeking to enter the U.S. illegally are likely to try to do so before those policies are enacted.”

“Right now, we are already seeing 800 to 1,000 people entering our region daily, creating a massive strain on our resources, services, and communities,” Desmond continued. “The influx is overwhelming local infrastructure and endangering the well-being of residents.”

Close to the Darien Gap — a vast jungle region spread across the Panama and Colombia border where thousands of U.S-bound migrants cross every year — migrants were told by a smuggler that he anticipates more deportations under the Trump administration, according to a WhatsApp group message reviewed by the WSJ.

“There were four WhatsApp groups in which hundreds of migrants coordinated their departure on U.S. election day,” Luis Villagrán, a Mexican migrant advocate who helps organize caravans in Tapachula, told the WSJ.

“As soon as Trump’s victory became clear, messages spreading fear began to appear,” Villagrán said.

In a statement to the DCNF, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesperson said the agency is remaining vigilant to ever-changing migration patterns, and urged migrants to “not believe the lies” of smugglers.

“The fact remains: the United States continues to enforce immigration law. Individuals who enter the U.S. unlawfully between ports of entry will continue to be quickly removed,” the CBP spokesperson said.

Upon entering office, President Joe Biden undertook 296 executive actions on immigration, with 89 of those orders specifically reversing or beginning the process of reversing Trump’s immigration policies. The Biden-Harris administration went on to undo a number of major Trump-era initiatives concerning border security, such as ending border wall construction and shutting down the Remain in Mexico program.

The aftermath was a historic flow of illegal immigration across the southern border. The number of illegal border crossings in fiscal year 2024 were the second worst in U.S. history — only surpassed by fiscal year 2023, according to data tracked by CBP.

There were about 8.5 million migrant encounters along the U.S.-Mexico border during the four fiscal years of the Biden-Harris administration.

Trump, who is set to return to office in January, was very clear about his immigration enforcement platform while on the campaign trail.

The president-elect has pledged to continue building the U.S.-Mexico border wall, revive the Remain in Mexico program, hire more border patrol agents and embark on the “largest deportation program in American history.” He has also pledged to put an end to birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil by illegal migrant parents.

The incoming administration appears poised to follow through this hardline agenda given the picks so far to lead top immigration enforcement roles. The White House transition team has tapped former Immigration and Customs Enforcement  acting director Tom Homan to serve as border czar, Stephen Miller to serve as deputy chief of staff for policy and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

Human smugglers and migrants south of the border appear to be paying attention to the American political scene. At least some migrants are now reportedly ditching the idea of booking an asylum appointment with U.S. officials and joining northbound caravans to the border.

“More than 20 friends decided not to wait for an appointment and joined the caravan,” Alfonso Meléndez, a 24-year-old Venezuelan national who arrived in southern Mexico in late September, stated to the WSJ.

“I’m very worried that they will throw us out when Trump takes office,” he continued.

By J. Edward Les, MD

Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.

But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.

And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.

Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.

Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.

And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.

Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.

The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.

But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”

It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.

Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.

Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:

“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”

Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”

As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.

The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.

Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.

Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.