Reporter: Migrants Coming From Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia — Will Title 42 End Signal Easier U.S. Entry? KJP: “Border Is Not Open”

On 12/20/2022, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about hemispheric migration patterns and how the administration was messaging to potential migrants throughout Latin America ahead of Title 42’s anticipated end. “Migrants aren’t just coming from the northern triangle anymore. They’re coming from Chile, from Peru, from Ecuador, who’s president is here today, Venezuela, Colombia, of course. What is the White House’s message to somebody who may see this somewhere in the western hemisphere and think, after Wednesday it’s going to be easier to get into the United States?” the reporter asked. KJP’s message was clear but brief: “The fact that the removal of Title 42 is happening in just a day or two doesn’t mean that the border is open… That doesn’t change the process that we have been moving forward with since day one of this administration. Look, we are surging assistance to the border.”

The Hemispheric Migration Shift

The reporter identified a significant shift. “Migrants aren’t just coming from the northern triangle anymore,” the reporter said.

The “Northern Triangle” referred to:

Guatemala — Central America.

Honduras — Central America.

El Salvador — Central America.

Traditional source countries — For U.S.-bound migration.

Focus of earlier efforts — Including Harris’s root causes work.

But by late 2022, migration had become more diverse:

Chile — South America.

Peru — South America.

Ecuador — South America.

Venezuela — South America, political crisis.

Colombia — South America.

Plus traditional sources — Northern Triangle continuing.

Plus extra-regional — Haitians, Cubans, others.

This diversification had major implications:

Broader regional pressures — Not just Central America.

Different push factors — Economic, political, security.

Complex migration routes — Through multiple countries.

Diplomatic complexity — Engaging multiple governments.

Policy implications — Beyond Northern Triangle focus.

The Venezuela and Colombia Component

Venezuelan migration was particularly significant:

Political crisis — Driving departure.

Economic collapse — Compounding pressures.

Millions of Venezuelans abroad — Already.

Many heading to U.S. — As regional opportunities filled.

Crossing multiple countries — On route to U.S.

Colombian migration had different drivers:

Economic pressures — Various factors.

Regional instability — In neighboring areas.

Traditional patterns — Migration to U.S. historically.

New pressures — Emerging.

The diversity meant that solutions couldn’t focus on one country or region. Regional approaches were necessary for hemispheric migration flows.

The Ecuadorian Visit Context

The reporter mentioned the Ecuadorian president’s visit. “Ecuador, who’s president is here today,” the reporter said.

This was Guillermo Lasso of Ecuador visiting Washington. The context:

Diplomatic engagement — With Ecuadorian president.

Migration discussion — Likely.

Regional cooperation — Needed.

Ecuadorian migration — Increasing.

Bilateral relationship — Important.

The timing of the question was politically sensitive. An Ecuadorian leader visiting to discuss various issues came alongside reporter questions about Ecuadorian migration. Both were happening simultaneously.

The Migration Message Question

The reporter’s question was strategic. “What is the White House’s message to somebody who may see this somewhere in the western hemisphere and think, after Wednesday it’s going to be easier to get into the United States?” the reporter asked.

The question addressed:

Signaling — What message the U.S. was sending.

Potential migrants — Considering journey.

Decision-making — Their calculations.

Easier entry assumption — Risk of encouraging journeys.

Title 42 interpretation — By potential migrants.

This was a communications question, not just a policy question. Policy changes in the U.S. created migration signals throughout the hemisphere. Potential migrants in various countries made decisions based on their perceptions of U.S. border conditions. How the U.S. messaged about Title 42’s end could affect those decisions.

The “Border Not Open” Message

KJP’s primary message was clear. “The fact that the removal of Title 42 is happening in just a day or two doesn’t mean that the border is open. It just doesn’t mean that,” KJP said.

The “border not open” framing:

Direct denial — Of open border narrative.

Clear messaging — For potential migrants.

Legal framework — Continuing regardless of Title 42.

Consequence continuation — For unlawful entry.

Political positioning — Against Republican critiques.

This message was important but depended on follow-through:

Actual enforcement — Consistent with message.

Processing outcomes — Varied by case.

Asylum approval rates — Actually variable.

Deportation rates — Different from detention.

Street releases — Versus actual returns.

If potential migrants saw that most U.S. crossings resulted in asylum applications, processing delays, and eventual residence, the “border not open” message wouldn’t match their observed reality. Messages only work when matched by consistent actions.

”Doesn’t Change the Process”

KJP claimed continuity. “That doesn’t change the process that we have been moving forward with since day one of this administration,” KJP said.

The “since day one” framing appeared again. This was familiar messaging:

Consistent process — Administration claim.

Day-one engagement — From beginning.

Continuous approach — Throughout tenure.

Legal framework — Unchanged.

Administration values — Consistent.

But the “process” hadn’t been very effective at reducing border pressures. If Title 42’s end didn’t change the process, why was the administration so concerned about its end? The logic suggested Title 42 had been a significant component of the process, regardless of administration framing.

”We Are Surging Assistance”

KJP used the now-familiar “surging” language. “Look, we are surging assistance to the border,” KJP said.

As noted in related briefings, “surging” had become repetitive administration messaging. The word had been used in:

September 2022 — Surging to El Paso.

October 2022 — Surging to border generally.

November 2022 — Surging continued.

December 2022 — Surging for Title 42 end.

Each use claimed additional effort. Combined, they described sustained “surge” activity that was essentially normal operations dressed up as crisis response.

The Hemispheric Implications

The reporter’s question had important hemispheric implications:

U.S. policy signals — Affect multiple countries.

Regional cooperation — Required.

Shared responsibilities — For migration management.

Economic consequences — For source countries.

Diplomatic relationships — Affected by flows.

The administration’s approach had attempted hemispheric coordination:

Los Angeles Declaration — June 2022 regional commitment.

Various bilateral agreements — With individual countries.

Processing centers — In other countries.

Humanitarian parole programs — For specific populations.

Root causes work — By VP Harris.

But these efforts hadn’t fundamentally reduced migration pressures. The hemispheric framework for addressing migration hadn’t produced the coordinated approach needed.

The Message Reception

The administration’s “border not open” message faced specific challenges:

Contradictory information — Some migrants successfully entering.

Smuggler messaging — Promoting journeys.

Media coverage — Showing U.S. responses.

Previous experiences — Of successful entrants.

Economic desperation — Overriding deterrence.

Political instability — Forcing departures.

Each factor reduced deterrent effect. Potential migrants made decisions based on multiple information sources. U.S. official messaging was one input among many, and often not the most influential.

The Title 42 End Reality

The reality of Title 42’s end (when it eventually happened in May 2023) was complex:

Migration did increase initially — Surge occurred.

New enforcement mechanisms — Deployed.

CBP One app — Created appointment system.

Regional processing — In various countries.

Parole programs — For specific populations.

Deportation increases — For some categories.

The outcome wasn’t simple “open border” but also wasn’t straightforward “continued enforcement.” Different migrants had different experiences based on:

Nationality — Different treatment by country.

Entry method — Legal vs. unlawful.

Asylum claims — Varied approval.

Family status — Different for families.

Background checks — Various outcomes.

The administration’s “border not open” message was technically accurate for some migrants but misleading for others. Many who crossed did gain access to the U.S., at least temporarily.

The Political Messaging Challenge

The administration faced a fundamental messaging challenge:

To migrants — “Don’t come, border not open.”

To Americans concerned about border — “We’re enforcing it.”

To progressive base — “We’re humane and legal.”

To business community — “Workers can come legally.”

To international partners — “We need cooperation.”

These messages were in tension. “Don’t come” conflicted with reports of many coming and staying. “Enforcing” conflicted with border release practices. “Humane” conflicted with enforcement needs. “Legal entry” was limited. Regional cooperation had mixed results.

KJP’s brief answer couldn’t address all these audiences simultaneously. The brevity itself reflected the difficulty of comprehensive messaging.

The Wednesday Event

The reporter specifically mentioned “Wednesday” — referring to December 21, 2022, when Title 42 was scheduled to end. As discussed in related briefings, the Supreme Court intervened that day, preventing Title 42 from ending as scheduled.

The Court’s intervention meant:

Wednesday passed without change — In Title 42 status.

Anticipated surge didn’t happen — Immediately.

Administration preparation — Not tested.

Communications challenges — Continued.

Title 42 eventual end — Delayed.

The messaging challenges KJP was navigating would continue for months. Each time Title 42’s end approached, similar messaging would be needed. The administration’s fundamental approach — “border not open, surging resources, Congressional action needed” — would be repeated throughout.

Key Takeaways

• A reporter noted that migrants were coming from diverse Latin American countries, not just traditional Northern Triangle sources.
• The reporter asked about U.S. messaging to potential migrants who might think Title 42’s end would make entry easier.
• KJP’s primary message was clear: “The fact that the removal of Title 42 is happening in just a day or two doesn’t mean that the border is open.”
• She claimed continuity: “That doesn’t change the process that we have been moving forward with since day one of this administration.”
• KJP used the familiar “surging assistance” language.
• The exchange highlighted the hemispheric migration complexity facing administration messaging.
• The Wednesday end of Title 42 was prevented by Supreme Court intervention, giving the administration additional time.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

• Migrants aren’t just coming from the northern triangle anymore. They’re coming from Chile, from Peru, from Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia.
• What is the White House’s message to somebody who may see this somewhere in the western hemisphere and think, after Wednesday it’s going to be easier to get into the United States?
• The fact that the removal of Title 42 is happening in just a day or two doesn’t mean that the border is open.
• It just doesn’t mean that.
• That doesn’t change the process that we have been moving forward with since day one of this administration.
• Look, we are surging assistance to the border.

Full transcript: 129 words transcribed via Whisper AI.