Notes: Costa Mesa Immigrant Youth Policy Discussion

Overview and Goals

• The discussion frames a policy win that benefits the entire community, not just a few individuals (Victor, Emilin, Emily). The aim is to create protections for immigrant students in Costa Mesa that endure beyond current leadership or graduating cohorts (e.g., Emilin, Emilin’s sister, Jackie).
• The policy is cast as a long-term investment: it should help future students feel supported, heard, and loved, and reduce fears that ICE will detain or deport students.
• Demographic projections are cited to emphasize urgency: the student population is expected to become more racially/ethnically diverse, notably with higher shares of Latinx/ Central American students. Projected demographics cited include $55\%$, $56\%$, $57\%$, and $58\%$ brown. This underpins the need for protections.
• The group envisions a broad-based, inclusive approach where participation is voluntary; not all youth need to engage in every policy step.
• The agenda includes both policy development and practical preparedness to engage in public processes (city council, school board). The speakers plan to be strategically prepared to advocate for protections.

Key Participants and Stakeholders

• Core organizers and participants: Emily, Victor, Emilin, Jackie, Itza.
• Supportive connections in the broader network: Grace Magana (Orange Unified), Lucy (surname not stated), Roberto (representing Resilience Orange County in local policy work), Carlos Villanueva (staffer for Vicente Sarbenta), Vicente Sarbenta (local official ally).
• Institutional entities mentioned: Costa Mesa city governance, Newport Unified School District, Orange Unified School District, local rapid-response networks.
• Community partners/contacts: Grace Magana from Orange Unified; Grace and Lucy are referenced in passing as people connected to the case load.
• Groups referenced: Chamois (likely a community or youth group involved in organizing). Grace contacted Carlos to coordinate handoffs and case management.

Planned Actions and Scheduling

• Youth engagement and preparation
  • If some youth aren’t ready to engage in policy-level work, plan separate prep sessions (e.g., Wednesday at 4 with Jackie and Itza) to prep for calls or meetings.
  • On event days, plan to show up as a group to city council or school board meetings (e.g., Tuesday) with a target of four speakers, adjusting as needed.
• Public-facing advocacy events
  • Attend city council and school board meetings; maintain a visible audience presence to signal support and accountability.
  • For the school district, consider how to extend city-level protections into district policy, highlighting that if the city can act, the school district should be able to do something similar.
• Agenda and time management
  • Shortened meeting agenda to one hour (anticipating that the presenter may only grant one hour).
  • Roles and assignments to ensure a coherent and collaborative delivery (see “Roles” section).
• Resource planning and legal support
  • Explore the possibility of workshops on power of attorney, knowing rights, and guardianship issues; consider establishing an attorney on retainer to quickly assist students in deportation or immigration-related crises.

Engagement Strategy and Inclusion

• Emphasis on inclusive participation: everyone understands the seriousness of the policy but may not be ready to engage immediately in policy development.
• Strategy includes offering separate, smaller prep sessions for those who aren’t ready to engage in the full policy conversation yet.
• The group aims to gather youth feedback and use it to shape the policy agenda, balancing “hearing from youth” with “hearing from adults” (the latter providing guidance and upcoming steps).

Legal Resources, Protections, and Implications

• Key policy tools discussed:
  • Power of Attorney (POA) workshops: to designate a guardian or trusted adult who can make decisions if a parent/guardian is detained or deported.
  • Child affidavits: documents that may support a child’s status or needs in the context of immigration proceedings.
  • Attorney on retainer: having a lawyer ready to take a case for a detained or endangered student; counters the reality that pro bono attorneys are overwhelmed.
• Practical questions raised:
  • Who will be custodians or guardians for minor students if their parents are deported or detained?
  • How can the school district allocate resources to support families facing deportation or immigration proceedings while ensuring due process for students?
  • Could hearings be made virtual to accommodate families or students? This could be a practical adaptation in some cases.
• Procedural notes:
  • The rapid-response network is currently at capacity, necessitating handoffs to other offices or staffers (e.g., Carlos Villanueva, Vicente Sarbenta’s team).
  • Grace Magana has already been in touch about three students facing removal proceedings; there is a need to coordinate with the district and rapid-response networks to provide timely support.
• Ethical and practical implications:
  • Balancing privacy with advocacy: avoid sharing personal information about cases; focus on systemic strategies without compromising individuals’ confidentiality.
  • Ensuring due process and fair treatment for all youth, particularly vulnerable immigrant students; the group emphasizes the principle of due process for everyone.
  • Equity considerations: the city is moving toward protective policies; it’s a question whether the school district should match that momentum and allocate resources for legal protections.

Real-World Context and Case Examples

• Local policy environment:
  • News coverage features Roberto representing Resilience Orange County, illustrating a broader municipal-level policy movement that complements school district work.
  • The city of Costa Mesa is already moving toward immigrant-supportive measures; the question is why the school district should not follow suit.
• Specific cases discussed:
  • Grace Magana reports three students in Orange Unified with removal proceedings; a notification letter from Nicaragua was received by one family, highlighting the immediacy of risk and the need for rapid response.
  • A youth received a removal-proceedings notification; another family is in a similar situation; the group contemplates possibilities like virtual hearings or other accommodations.
• Coordination and handoffs:
  • Grace contacted Carlos; Carlos would work with Vicente Sarbenta’s staffer to hand off cases if Grace identifies potential cases; the group emphasizes that they are not caseworkers themselves.
• Strategic implications:
  • If school-level policies can address due process, this aligns with the broader municipal policy movement and supports families dealing with deportation/proceedings.
  • The discussion acknowledges that the landscape in Costa Mesa is changing, with the city taking action and a push for school participation.

Operational Planning: Roles, Agenda, and Communications

• Meeting roles and assignment plan
  • Propose a lead presenter for brief segments and a tag-team approach to cover various topics (e.g., power of attorney, child affidavits, workshops, rights education, attorney on retainer).
  • Suggested roles: a quick intro/controls person, a lead speaker (e.g., Emily or Victor), and a closing segment. The team contemplates a triad approach to ensure coverage of key topics.
  • One member offers to lead the opening, with the others adding content as needed; third person may close.
• Topics to cover in the policy discussion
  • Power of Attorney (POA) basics and workshop logistics.
  • Child affidavits and other protective documents.
  • Rights education workshops and know-your-rights materials.
  • Attorney-on-retainer concepts and feasibility given pro bono constraints.
• Contingency planning and escalation
  • If engagement with key stakeholders (e.g., school board, district leadership) stalls, escalation pathways should be considered to ensure the issue remains on the agenda.
  • They explicitly note avoiding extreme actions (e.g., dramatic protests) at this stage; they prefer private, constructive avenues first.
• Collaboration and follow-up
  • The group recognizes the need to incorporate feedback from youth and adults, balancing urgency with thoughtful, informed advocacy.
  • The team plans to take notes and possibly assign someone to document outcomes for the next meeting.

Challenges, Contingencies, and Escalation

• Time constraints and agenda management: the meeting is expected to last only one hour, so the team is prioritizing essential items and clear roles.
• Engagement variability: some youth may be hesitant to engage in policy work; the plan includes optional, separate prep sessions to accommodate those individuals.
• Resource limitations: rapid-response networks are at capacity; reliance on staffers (Carlos) to facilitate case handoffs and support from Vicente Sarbenta’s team.
• Potential for escalation: if outreach stalls, the group considers escalating to higher authorities or platforms to keep the issue in focus, while avoiding premature or extreme actions.
• Privacy and safety considerations: ensure personal information from cases is not shared publicly; protect the privacy of students and families while pursuing policy protections.

Ethical, Philosophical, and Practical Implications

• Equity and justice: the initiative centers on protecting vulnerable immigrant students and ensuring due process, highlighting a commitment to equity in education and immigration contexts.
• Role of schools vs. local government: the discussion probes the responsibility of school districts to provide protection and resources traditionally associated with municipal policy, raising questions about governance, budgeting, and accountability.
• Public participation and accessibility: the plan includes staged engagement with youth and families, using multiple channels (prep sessions, board/ council appearances) to ensure accessibility and inclusivity.
• Practical feasibility: the feasibility of workshops, retainers for attorneys, and POA arrangements requires assessment of budgets, access to lawyers, and collaboration with local agencies.
• Long-term strategy vs. immediate crises: the conversation balances short-term crisis response (deportation proceedings) with longer-term policy building (immigrant protections in district-level policy).

Next Steps and Action Items

• Confirm roles and finalize the one-hour agenda, with clear assignments for opening, main content, and closing.
• Finalize the list of topics to cover: POA workshops, child affidavits, know-your-rights workshops, and attorney-retainer considerations.
• Reach out to key contacts for coordination and case referrals:
  • Grace Magana (Orange Unified) to share updates on the three students and coordinate with rapid-response networks.
  • Carlos Villanueva (staffer for Vicente Sarbenta) to handle case handoffs and connect youth with legal resources.
• Engage youth at multiple levels: offer optional prep sessions for those not ready to engage in policy discussions; ensure the audience on meeting day includes a prepared speaker roster (target of four speakers).
• Explore feasibility of a virtual hearing option and assess possibilities for making hearings accessible to families who cannot attend in person.
• Assess budget implications and feasibility of an attorney-on-retainer arrangement, recognizing pro bono capacity constraints.
• Monitor and document progress, with the aim of synchronizing city-level protections with school district actions to maximize impact for immigrant students.
• Consider ethical boundaries and privacy protections when sharing information about cases; keep personal details confidential while pursuing systemic protections.

Notes on Quotes and Moments from the Transcript

• Policy framing: the speaker emphasizes a “policy win for everybody” and the long-term impact on future youth and students who will be affected after graduation.
• Demographic trend: the expectation that Costa Mesa will have a higher share of brown and Central American students, underscoring the urgency for protections.
• Separate prep paths: acknowledgement that not all youth will engage in policy conversations; plan to provide separate preparation times to accommodate different readiness levels.
• Local policy complementarity: recent news features about Roberto and Resilience Orange County are seen as complementary to Costa Mesa’s municipal efforts and potentially to school district actions.
• Due process and resource questions: the team raises the need for due process, district resources for deportation/immigration proceedings, and the obligation to protect families.
• Crisis case examples: Grace Magana’s report of three students facing removal proceedings and the notification letter from Nicaragua are used to illustrate real-time risk and the need for rapid response.
• Capacity and handoffs: rapid-response networks are at capacity; the plan is to coordinate through Carlos and Vicente’s staffer for smoother case management.
• Guardrails: privacy, non-extremist actions, and non-disruptive strategies are emphasized as the team navigates advocacy and policy work.

Key Formulas and Numerical References (LaTeX)

• Projected demographic shares mentioned: $55\%$, $56\%$, $57\%$, $58\%$ brown students.
• Agenda constraint: one hour -> $1\,\text{hour}$.