Staff Reports
The closure of the Jewish Family Service’s (JFS) migrant shelter in San Diego marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over immigration policy and federal funding. The shelter, which had been operational since 2018 and provided temporary housing, food, and legal aid to over 240,000 migrants, has ceased operations after not receiving any new arrivals since President Trump returned to office in January 2025. This development is being hailed by conservatives as proof of the administration’s success in securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.
The shutdown comes amidst sweeping changes to federal immigration policies under the Trump administration. Key among these changes was the discontinuation of the CBP One app, which had allowed migrants to schedule asylum appointments at U.S. ports of entry. With the app disabled and stricter enforcement measures in place, the flow of migrants into San Diego has slowed dramatically. JFS, which had anticipated continued demand for its services, found itself without clients and was forced to lay off 115 employees.
Conservatives view this closure as a victory for fiscal responsibility and national security. San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond praised the administration’s efforts, noting that fewer migrants crossing the border reduces strain on local resources and federal funds. He emphasized that taxpayer dollars should be directed toward addressing domestic issues such as homelessness and public safety rather than supporting shelters for illegal immigrants. The dramatic decline in migrant arrivals has also been accompanied by a reduction in smuggling incidents along San Diego’s shores, further validating the administration’s approach.
However, JFS has criticized the lack of federal funding and abrupt policy shifts that led to its closure. The organization claims it was allocated $22 million in federal funds last year but never received the money, leaving it unable to sustain operations. While JFS plans to pivot toward providing pro bono legal services for immigrants facing deportation or seeking asylum, its leaders have expressed frustration with what they see as a lack of support from Washington.
For many Americans, this situation highlights broader questions about immigration policy and resource allocation. Supporters of Trump’s policies argue that reducing incentives for illegal immigration is essential to restoring order at the border and protecting American jobs. Critics counter that abrupt policy changes can create humanitarian challenges and disrupt services for vulnerable populations.
As the political battle over immigration continues, the closure of this San Diego shelter serves as a tangible example of how federal policies can reshape local realities. For now, it appears that President Trump’s promise to secure the border is being fulfilled—though not without controversy or consequences for those caught in the crossfire of these sweeping changes.
