The immigration discussion is happening in Santa Maria whether certain elected officials want it to or not. After months of stalling, the City Council is pushing forward with discussing an immigration ad hoc committee.
At the insistence of Councilmember Gloria Soto, who first asked for the ad hoc committee last August, the council finally voted to put a discussion about it on a future agenda. While Mayor Alice Patino was mum on the issue, Councilmember Carlos Escobedo—an immigrant who hasn’t murmured much about federal immigration enforcement, protests, or undocumented immigrants—was cryptic.
“I’m telling you guys, you might not hear something that you like, or might not like, but I’m glad that finally, … it’s time to make decisions,” he said during the Feb. 17 meeting. “We need to get things done, and move on, and I’m not just talking about immigration.”
Why, Carlos? What are you going to say?
News flash: This immigration conversation isn’t going away. No one’s moving on. It’s going to continue to come up. It’s just a fact of life in Santa Maria—and that’s not going to change with a decision about whether the city forms an ad hoc committee to talk about it or not.
What will this committee do? There isn’t much a city can actually do when it comes to the federal enforcement agenda, which Patino has said so many times over the years that she’s been mayor that she’s probably sick of hearing herself say it. But, as Soto laid out, a committee can hear from the people, it can listen to the people who are most impacted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
I guess listening is doing something. Or is it just like patting someone on the back to make them feel better?
When Soto requested the ad hoc committee discussion in August, she also asked that the council “consider holding a meeting with stakeholders regarding the recent ICE raids and the impact on the community.” Whether those two are connected or not, who knows. It’s all very vague. Maybe we’ll find out in March?
Soto tried to get Patino to insert some direction into the future agenda item, but the city attorney wasn’t having it—and Patino was silent. After her misdirected Feb. 3 monologue that seemed to imply that undocumented immigrants and criminal activity were connected, that’s not surprising.
Although, Patino did speak up to defend herself and how certain members of the community took what she said that night. Several public commenters on Feb. 17 took their allotted time to criticize Patino’s statements, and she interjected.
“I have never, ever, ever characterized the immigrants as being criminals,” she said. “My grandparents would be very upset if they knew I’d called them criminals. I have never said that.”
Oh, but you were pretty darn close! Whether Patino meant to or not, it was implied in her speech. Which sucks on so many levels. It sucks for her, for the city, for residents, for immigrants, for the situation we find ourselves in with the Trump administration’s push to deport as many immigrants as possible—not just the ones whose papers aren’t in order.
There isn’t much the city can do. That’s real. But elected representatives can hear their constituents out. It’s the least they can do.
The Canary is always listening. Send your thoughts to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in February 26 – March 5, 2026.