Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) expressed his satisfaction after the US Supreme Court overturned various lower court decisions related to President Trump’s order that seeks to revoke birthright citizenship for children considered “illegal entrants.”
Shortly after, he shared a video stating, “Birthright citizenship is a policy that makes no sense,” though this seems to contradict the wording of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Cruz previously sponsored legislation aimed at excluding certain disadvantaged children from the constitutional definition of citizenship. Ironically, he was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother and a Cuban immigrant father, and has never undergone the naturalization process.
His citizenship, as derived from statute rather than the Constitution, raises questions. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, citizenship is conferred to children born outside the US when one parent is a citizen and the other is a foreign national.
This means that Cruz was likely eligible to run for president during the 2016 Republican primaries as a “natural-born citizen” under Article 2. He never went through naturalization, instead gaining citizenship through complicated laws.
In 1970, Cruz’s mother, Elizabeth Dara, was able to pass on citizenship to him, given she had “physical presence” in the US for at least ten years prior to his birth, including five years after turning 14. This law has become more flexible over time.
However, Cruz’s mother’s birth certificate alone—indicating she was born in Delaware in 1934—does not adequately prove she met the residency conditions necessary for transmitting citizenship to him, especially when considering the timeline from 1948 to 1970.
If Cruz were to enact stringent citizenship laws on others, he would need substantial documentation proving his qualifying presence in the US before his birth in Canada.
Had Trump’s executive order or Cruz’s proposed law existed in 1934, it might have undermined the basis for Cruz’s citizenship, as he would need to prove that his mother’s parents held legal residency in the US.
There are also uncertainties regarding whether Cruz’s father ever violated immigration laws. Rafael Cruz, who entered the US on a student visa in 1957, faced immense challenges, including language barriers. He worked to support himself in various jobs while studying and eventually graduated in 1961.
While Rafael’s strong work ethic is commendable, it might suggest some irregularities, as there were regulations about student visa holders working exclusively under limited conditions. The minimum wage in 1957 was $1.00 an hour, which raises the possibility that Rafael may not have complied with the rules.
If he were engaging in work beyond what was permitted, this could mean he was potentially out of status, which, under strict interpretation, might have implications for Cruz’s citizenship as well.
It wasn’t until 2005, when Cruz was already practicing law in Texas, that he officially became a US citizen, raising questions about his father’s immigration history during that time.
This might appear to be a minor issue, yet it could have serious repercussions in a political climate where immigration statuses are closely scrutinized.
I’m not here to undermine the Cruz family or question the Senator’s citizenship outright. It’s more about exploring the implications of placing such heavy scrutiny on immigrant statuses.
Legal frameworks, especially executive orders, can be unpredictable and open to varying interpretations or potential reversals.
Looking forward, children in Cruz’s circumstances—born abroad to American parents potentially in violation of immigration laws—might face similar uncertainties regarding their citizenship.
With Trump’s executive order, nearly all cases of newborn citizenship could undergo the same level of examination that the Cruz family would be subjected to.
The beauty of birthright citizenship lies in the clarity provided by the 14th Amendment. There’s no need for extensive genealogical research or convoluted legal interpretations. What matters is the place of birth, which is enough to define someone as American.
Cruz seems to have some introspection to do about his objectives, and perhaps needs a reminder of “E Pluribus Unum.”
