Republicans Divided Over GUCR Statement on Immigration


In a statement released on its official Facebook page, the Georgetown University College Republican board expressed its disapproval of President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration. Yet, several Republicans on campus, including former GUCR board members, have criticized the statement for misrepresenting the President’s actions.

On Saturday evening, the GUCR board wrote that they were “disheartened” by President Trump’s executive order restricting entry into the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries.

“Although we understand the grave threats that our country faces from radical Islamist terrorism, we do not believe that security should trump humanity,” the statement read. “We are disheartened by the effects the President’s actions are having on both Americans and our brothers and sisters around the world.”

The board argued that the president’s actions do not reflect the principles of the Republican Party and will likely harm U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East.

However, several former GUCR board members have criticized the organization’s response to the executive order.

Zachary Hughbanks (COL ’18) expressed concerns about the statement, arguing that it overlooked important facts.

“A very vocal minority has been riled up by mischaracterizations from the mainstream media,” Hughbanks said.

According to Hughbanks, it is inaccurate to call the executive order a “Muslim ban.” He implored critics to examine the order more carefully and to consider public opinion on the question.

Former GUCR board member Michael Parmiter (MSB ’18) also disagreed with the organization’s response.

“[The statement] is well intentioned but very misguided,” Partimer told The Georgetown Review.

Parmiter similarly argued that the executive order should not be called a Muslim ban because most Muslim countries are not included on the list. He also noted that President Obama previously designated these countries as sources of terrorism.

“A majority of Americans agree with the President’s decision,” Parmiter added.

Still, many others supported the organization’s response. Students across campus praised GUCR for objecting to the administration’s policy.

“It is important that Republicans and Republican organizations speak out when they are offended by or disagree with actions taken by any government official, even if it is in opposition to another Republican,” said Reed Howard (SFS ’17). “We must be guided by our principles and our conscious, not blinded by party loyalty.”

In a Facebook post, the Georgetown University College Democrats applauded the Republican response and called for solidarity on the issue.

“We are so proud to be working alongside some great Hoyas at the Georgetown University College Republicans,” the post read.

GUCR’s response preceded other university statements released after President Trump’s announcement of the executive order. In an email to students, Professor Charles King, chair of the Department of Government, wrote that President Trump’s banning immigrants is “inimical to the professed values of this university.”

President DeGioia echoed these sentiments in an official statement sent to students and facility on Sunday evening.

“The implications of this order are significant and concerning,” Degioia said.

The Georgetown Review reached out to GUCR for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

Correction: This article previously stated that GUCR’s response followed other university statements; GUCR’s statement was published on Saturday and preceded official university communications. 


  1. Wow. The CR’s are really cucking it up this year. And it’s only February! Someone should lead an initiative to get everyone who signed on to that statement kicked off the board.

    Frankly, I’m not surprised this happened. Reed is an Egg McMuffin deep state and open-borders #NeverTrump type who tried to get the CRs to disavow Trump during the campaign. Wisely, they didn’t.

    Reed is representative of the sort of fake conservative who bashes conservatives while kow-towing to liberals because he wants to be liked by the left and seen as the right’s token representative so he can gain status, speaking opportunities, invitations to events actual conservatives won’t get invited to, and patted on the head. It’s just virtue-signaling and ultimately damaging to advancing conservative and Republican policies since he’s always surrendering.

    Truth is Reed has never stood up for anything that wasn’t already popular or endorsed by campus liberals, unlike Amber or recently Hunter in GUSA (I hope he didn’t sign onto the statement). Instead, Reed’s the type of “conservative” who thinks his job is to show up to the political fight and lose.


    Oh, and it would be nice to know if this was unanimous by the board or if anyone dissented. Perhaps a little bit more reporting is in order.

    Here’s a great description of the way conservatives like Reed think, modified from a blog post by Vox Day . . .

    Moderate: “Okay, gentlemen… take 5 paces, then turn and shoot. Democrat has won the coin toss and will shoot first. Understood?”
    Reed: “Yes.”
    Democrat: “Whatever.”
    Moderate: “One…”
    Democrat: Turns and points pistol at Reed, hands trembling because he’s afraid of guns.
    Moderate: Looks at Democrat scornfully… “Two…”
    Democrat: Screams “CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!” and shoots in Reed’s general direction… misses horribly
    Reed: “What the hell?” Turns around and says, “That’s not honorable!”
    Democrat: “How dare you turn around! You’re not a gentleman!”
    Moderate: “Reed! You must take three more paces before you may turn around!”
    Reed: “That dude shot at me after two and when my back was turned!”
    Moderate: “Do not lower yourself to his level! Death before dishonor!”
    Reed (without a hint of sarcasm and an actually believing in what he’s about to say, and too ignorant to realize “the rules” he cites are not actually rules but limits liberal tries to impose on conservatives): “You’re right. I apologize and must remember to play by the rules, even though it means letting myself get killed, leaving my family to suffer, and my ideas to never advance. Because I’m so much more moral than those unwashed and loser Republicans who don’t get invited to events and who are so crass as to fight back because they’re unwilling “to lose honorably,” which I’m addicted to doing. After all, that’s why I get invited to those events! Because I’m so honorable!”
    Democrat: “You’re right. You’re one of the good CRs. You are honorable! We’ll get Todd Olson to invite you to next week’s reception at Riggs and and say publicly how great you are for the next three days and then starting Monday will go back to talking smack about you and insulting your intelligence, morals, and everything you believe in. Oh, and I like you Reed!”
    Reed: Turns around, smug and satisfied, because a liberal likes him for selling out his own side in order to preserve his positions liberal’s favorite “conservative” and token Republican representative.
    Democrat: Raises pistol and shoots again, this time not missing.

    Note: Reed isn’t the only one in the CRs who thinks like this. #DraintheGUCRSwamp