Agnes Gibboney, whose son Ronald da Silva was fatally shot by an undocumented gang member, publicly criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democrats for a bill that would expand state-funded legal defense for immigrants in removal proceedings. Introduced by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, the measure would provide attorneys to adults in immigration court with priority for detained individuals and is now under review in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Supporters argue the bill protects due process; opponents—including victims' families—say it misallocates taxpayer funds and could endanger citizens. California policy may exclude people with certain serious or violent felony convictions from any expanded program.
'Stop This Insanity': Angel Mom Agnes Gibboney Slams Newsom and Democrats Over Proposal To Use Taxpayer Funds For Immigrant Defense
‘Stop this insanity’: Angel mom rips Newsom, Dems for bill to use taxpayer dollars for illegals’ defense
Agnes Gibboney, a California “angel mom” whose son was killed in a shooting involving an undocumented immigrant, sharply criticized Governor Gavin Newsom and state Democrats over a proposed bill that would use public funds to expand legal defense for immigrants in removal proceedings. In interviews she urged voters to “stop this insanity.”
What the Bill Would Do
The measure, introduced by Assemblymember Mia Bonta in February, would create a framework to extend state-funded legal counsel to adults in immigration court regardless of immigration status, with priority given to people held in detention. The proposal builds on existing programs that provide attorneys to certain groups—such as unaccompanied minors—and is intended by supporters to protect due process for noncitizens facing removal.
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is being criticized by angel mother Agnes Gibboney (far right), whose son, Ronald da Silva, was killed by an illegal immigrant gang member in 2002.(Getty Images)
Where It Stands
The bill advanced out of two Assembly policy committees and is under review in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Gov. Newsom has not indicated whether he would sign the proposal if it reaches his desk. Last year the governor signed legislation expanding state-funded counsel for unaccompanied immigrant children.
Family Reaction and Personal Testimony
"My son was murdered," Gibboney said in an interview with Fox News Digital. "Not one politician has ever contacted me. Not one politician said, 'I'm so sorry that this previously deported criminal illegal alien shot and killed your son.' Not one of them."
Gibboney said she has repeatedly contacted Newsom's office since her son Ronald da Silva was killed in 2002 and has not received a response. She described the personal toll of the loss: Ronald was 29, the firstborn and only son, and left behind two children.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom departs the Assembly Floor at the state Capitol in Sacramento after delivering his State of the State address on Jan. 8, 2026.
Supporters' Case
Supporters of the bill say expanding access to counsel ensures fair hearings and due process for people navigating a complex immigration system—often in a second language and without representation. Abraham Bedoy, manager of California policy and government affairs at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, called broader legal defense “another important step in our state’s strong trajectory towards universal legal representation.”
Opposition and Concerns
Opponents, including Gibboney and organizations representing victims’ families, argue the proposal redirects taxpayer dollars away from citizens and victims and could incentivize illegal immigration. American Border Story, a group that advocates for families of victims of crimes committed by migrants, condemned the measure as a grave affront to “Angel Families.”
Assembly member Mia Bonta attends a press conference announcing new funding for communities across the state to address homelessness and mental health in Hayward, California, March 2, 2026.
Gibboney also criticized California's spending priorities, citing the state's debt and high costs of living, and urged lawmakers to allocate funds to veterans, seniors, and education instead.
Legal Limits and Safeguards
The bill does not enumerate every exclusion, but existing California policy suggests that people with certain serious or violent felony convictions could be excluded or deprioritized for state-funded counsel. Supporters and lawmakers say the proposal is meant to complement, not replace, existing public-safety protections.
Voices From Both Sides
Mia Bonta framed the bill as protecting “every Californian’s right to a fair hearing,” saying the state has a responsibility to uphold due process, dignity, and access to justice regardless of ability to pay. Opponents counter that the measure is a misuse of limited taxpayer resources and an affront to victims and their families.
The debate highlights broader national tensions over sanctuary policies, deportations, and how states allocate resources for immigrant services and public safety.
Help us improve.
