Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigrant Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Immigrant advocates urge Oxnard to agendize $1 million legal and humanitarian fund after recent enforcement actions
Summary
Several community groups and residents urged the council to create a $1,000,000 legal and humanitarian aid fund and to adopt local policies to document federal immigration enforcement; council members said they will consider follow-up but stopped short of committing city funds at the meeting.
Oxnard — Multiple residents and immigrant-rights volunteers urged the City Council on Sept. 2 to agendize a plan to commit $1,000,000 for legal defense, humanitarian aid and family reunification after a series of federal immigration enforcement actions that community groups say harmed Oxnard residents.
Nut graf: Speakers representing volunteer networks described lingering trauma from recent enforcement actions, said many affected residents still lack legal representation, and called for a city-led funding and policy response. Councilmembers said the city has taken steps (including previously joining the ACLU lawsuit) and that staff will return with options, but no vote to allocate the requested funds occurred at the meeting.
Public comment highlights: Sarah Wilcheski of the 805 Immigrant Rapid Response Network said the majority of those detained in a July enforcement action were Oxnard residents and asked the council to “take action for justice, equality, and the safety of your constituents.” She explicitly asked the council “We ask for $1,000,000 to support legal, humanitarian and family reunification assistance.”
Susana Canales Baron, a volunteer organizer with the 805 Immigrant Coalition, said a petition with more than 300 signatures had been presented and urged the council to agendize the funding request. “This is not a charity; it is an investment,” she told the council, arguing that fear of enforcement has reduced community members’ willingness to seek services and to cooperate with law enforcement in criminal matters.
Other public speakers — including Arthur Valenzuela Jr., Odette Moran and Eduardo Huerta — described community harms and urged stronger local policies to document federal enforcement activity and protect residents.
Council response and context: Councilmembers and staff reiterated actions already taken. Several council members noted the city previously joined the ACLU litigation referenced by speakers; Councilmember Perallo described his August vote against joining the ACLU lawsuit and explained he was concerned about potential federal retaliation that could affect federal housing funds. “I voted no because I personally do not have a spot for 5,300 people when their next stop would be the street,” Perallo said, referring to the local housing authority’s federally funded units.
Mayor McArthur, the mayor pro tem and other council members said staff was reviewing options and that the county’s responses and neighboring jurisdictions’ actions could influence next steps. No city funding decision or formal direction to allocate $1,000,000 was taken at the meeting.
Ending: Advocates asked the council to formally place the funding request on a future agenda; staff told the council they would provide updates and suggested the council is considering contingency plans if county or regional partners do not act. The council meeting record will include the written petitions and public comments submitted for the record.
