Documenting Ted Cruz's Citizenship

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court  held in Arizona v. ITCA that a state could not demand “documentary evidence” of United States citizenship as a condition of registering to vote in federal elections.  This upset Ted Cruz very much. The ruling opened a “hole” in the law, he said, that will allow “non-citizens to register and thereby encourages voter fraud.” He therefore introduced "a commonsense (sic) amendment to the immigration bill that permits states to require I.D. before registering voters.”

After all, we should never just take someone's word about something as important as citizenship.

But this raises an interesting point.  If enough questions are raised about Cruz's own citizenship -- by Donald Trump or others -- what sort of documentary evidence would he be able to produce?

As we all know, Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father.  Thus, his claim to U.S. citizenship rests on Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which applies to children born abroad to "one citizen and one alien parent."  Under the terms of the INA, Cruz would not have become a citizen at birth simply because his mother was a citizen.  In addition, there was a requirement that she had been physically present in the United States for "a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen."  Thus, it would not be enough for Cruz to produce his own and his mother's birth certificates (as he has already done).  He would also have to document his mother's physical presence in the United States for the required time period.

Now ordinarily, I would be more than willing to accept Ted's mother's word for it, say in the form of an affidavit -- she was born Eleanor Darragh in Delaware, and graduated from college in Texas, so it is pretty certain that she fulfilled the residency requirement. But Cruz is a stickler about other people's documentation -- he believes that affidavit-based voting is a "hole" in the National Voter Registration Act -- so it seems only fair to apply the same standard to him. To prove that he actually falls under Section 301(g), Cruz would therefore have to come up with documentary evidence of leases, school attendance, utility bills, or other proof of his mother's physical residence in the United States for the necessary ten years.

Cruz has been pretty cavalier and incurious about his citizenship in the past.  When it was revealed that he was a Canadian citizen, he said, "Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire live since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter."

It turns out that he was wrong about that, and he ended up formally renouncing his Canadian citizenship over two years after he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Now we are talking about the presidency, so it only makes "commonsense" (as Cruz once put it) to be careful.  Let's see those papers.

Comments

[Captian Hurska Carswell, Continuance King]

What troubles me about Ted Cruz are his recent comments about New York. They smack me as veiled anti-Semitism. They are reminiscent of Jesse Jackson's "Hymie Town" remarks from 1984.

[anon]

Who knew? Lubet is a birther!

I well remember the insistence on proof of citizenship that he has consistently advocated throughout the years. Yes, Lubet is a true man of principle. Not.

And, no, the flimsy attempt to hoist Cruz on his own petard is pitiful and not an excuse for this obvious campaign piece.

This is just part of Lubet's political campaign, and now, it seems he is inclined to focus his aim on any Republican rising in the polls, making his intent all the more obvious.

It's totally ok in my view that Lubet is in the campaign business, using an academic website to hawk his partisan and amateurish drivel. What is so obnoxious to me is that he won't be honest about it, and he always attempts to cloak his attacks in some "reasonable reason." Funny how only attacks on Republicans are reasonable.

It is to this reader a misuse of this website to be so biased and to lack any objectivity. One need not be a Republican, or hope for a Republican candidate to succeed to object to such a use of an academic website for purely political purposes. Lubet's purpose is not to enlighten, or even stimulate debate. His purpose, plain and clear, is to attack Republicans. As such, this is not an academic purpose, but a purely personal and partisan effort.

To this reader, who does NOT comment on every one of Lubet's posts, his campaign is inappropriate in these pages.

[Christie2016]

Help me out here, anon. Lubet notes that Cruz favors documentation of citizenship for the purposes of voting in federal elections. Then Lubet says that Cruz ought to have to document his citizenship for the purposes of serving as president.

Where's the partisan amateurish drivel? I am not seeing it.

[John Lietzau]

Well done 😊 take a bow Steve!

["New York Values"]

The partisan amateurish drivel is what the rest of us call facts, which are too often inconvenient for anon's ilk, and those citizens who live in, as Ted Cruz would say, "real America." Cruz can be a hypocrite on voting and citizenship and anon can cry like the petulant tea bagging crowd holding signs that say "keep your Government hands off my Medicare," or are paranoid about Obama taking guns away (while the sellers have record sales).

[Kurt Mitenbuler]

Posting an anonymous retort to a question of fact has the impact of an over baked potato popping in the microwave.

[anon]

See, Steve? This is what you inspire.

We should be able to agree that this sort of partisanship, and the pure hatred evidenced above, is destroying the ability of this country to function. This is the condition that is so undermining this country and you are fueling it.

Whether right or wrong, an academic website seems to be a very inappropriate place to wage your partisan campaign.

Why not run your attacks elsewhere, perhaps on a website devoted to pleasing those who hate Republicans? (Yes, I know, the FL readership likely does fall mostly into that category of persons who enjoy only one side of political attacks, yet, this site does usually seem to at least attempt to maintain an academic posture.)

Note: I am not addressing the merits of your claims here. There are very legitimate grounds to attack EVERY candidate, and therefore very legitimate grounds to attack you, Lubet, on the grounds of the hypocrisy you evidence (you seem to tailor your positions on the same issues based on whose ox is being gored). Arguing the merits in this context would not only be futile, but does not seem to be appropriate.

To this reader, Lubet is a very unskilled political attack man. It seems that he wants to impersonate Lee Atwater, but he has a long way to go to be as effective a smear campaigner. Perhaps Lubet should work for a few campaigns, where he might learn the art of undermining candidates in the fashion he clearly intends.

[J.G.]

anon. the essence of an "academic website" isn't that it's for discussing only "academic" matters but that it provides a space for discussion in the academic spirit of openness and respect, one where contributors bring academic insights to the table. The late Calvin Massey wrote a fair number of trenchant posts here criticizing what he saw as ignorance, folly, and hypocrisy from the political left. They were welcome here. So are Steve's posts doing the same to the political right. Agree with them on the substance or not, Calvin had and Steve has interesting things to say. That suffices.

[anon]

JG
I quite remember how Massey's posts were received. What you call "welcome" ???

I don't find Lubet's posts interesting at all. The one above, for example, is hopelessly confused, and, in his passion to portray any Republican as basically evil, Lubet has really missed the mark here. Frankly, it isn't worth the time to rebut his post on the merits because: a) he is preaching to the choir here and won't convince anyone of anything who didn't already agree that all Republicans are bad and all Democrats are good, and b.) Lubet is trying to make a name for himself as an attack person (e.g., Goffman) and any engaging with him on the merits might suggest that there is merit to what he said above. There isn't.

You refer to "the academic spirit of openness and respect." But respect, as one of the hateful commenters above pointed out, means respect for the truth. Of course, Lee Atwater would have claimed everything he said was "true." But, his messages were divisive, hateful and spurious.

If you think Lubet can be defended on the grounds that he acts in a way that promotes "openness" (about Democrats, for example, about his motives, for example) or "respect" (for the political system, for the spirit of equality, which means equality in scrutiny not one sided screeds directed only at one's "enemies") then suffice it to say that we disagree.

I didn't know that the FL was constituted to serve as a platform for Lubet's Lee Atwater like political attack campaign. I hope he stops. Others probably love it and wish him to continue.

So be it. If you believe that you should only hear one side of the political debate, then I would suggest, as I did suggest to Steve, that you only read MSNBC like blogs. There are plenty. SO long as the FL permits comments then at least there should be SOMEONE pointing out that Lubet's attacks are often irresponsible and off base, and very inappropriate as crassly biased.

[Jack]

Professor Lubet,

Thanks for this. I believe that willingness to be subject to the laws one proposes or enacts has been a critical issue in U.S. history, from the institution of slavery to the War on Drugs. So this particular form of hypocrisy, in my view, is very important to illuminate. It is of a piece with Professor Lawrence Tribe's views on Senator Cruz's citizenship status, which notes that under the harsh brand of originalism he defends, he would not be natural born. It is an important observation that Senator Cruz wants strict adherence to "the law" for the poor and powerless, while he believes that he merits generous leniency.

Jack

[anon]

Jack

Just what do you mean by "hypocrisy" in connection with the "War on Drugs"? Who do you have in mind?

[Alok Mishra]

What is the meaning of "hypocrisy"?

[Jack Chin]

Anon, that there have been widely different enforcement and punishment rates for drug offenses for different populations which are not well correlated with underlying rates of offending by those populations. Alfred Blumstein at Carnegie Mellon is to my knowledge the pioneering scholar in the area. Also the late David Musto of Yale Medical School. Jack

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

With this War on Drugs, and "strict adherence to the law," one needs to look to the sunny side of life. It's enabled me to make my Bronze Level Obama Care Payments and take my family to the Dells. We can all go home happy now. Or as an attorney mentor of blessed memory noted: We have a system of checks and balances. If the check is big enough, you will have balance.