Here’s Ted Cruz, July 17, 2012, during his run for the Texas Senate, supporting building a wall:
MODERATOR: Mr. Cruz. You were asked during April’s Belo Debate if you support building a fence the length of the U.S./Mexico border and here’s what you said.
MODERATOR: He supports building a wall along the entire Texas/Mexico border. Is that something that you would support? Yes, no, why? We’ll start with you, Mr. Cruz.
CRUZ: Yes. We have an illegal immigration crisis and we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. That means fences, that means walls…
MODERATOR: [unintelligible] wall, you said you’d support a wall —
CRUZ: I said yes to that.
MODERATOR: — even if it infringes on property rights of Texans along the way.
CRUZ: Property owners should be compensated for that 
MODERATOR: Is that still your position tonight, to build a fence the length of the Texas/Mexico border?
CRUZ: I think we need to use every tool humanly possible.
MODERATOR: And that is one of them?
MODERATOR: Yes? OK. Do you have any idea how much it would cost?
CRUZ: I don’t know the specific cost but I can guarantee you it is far less than the cost of illegal immigration.
The moderator goes on to berate Cruz for supporting this despite the cost. Cruz sticks to his guns. That was July 17, 2012, and the debate clip used in the second debate was from April 13, 2012. Donald Trump’s latest presidential run was announced in June 2015.
This means Ted Cruz supported a wall years before Trump announced his 2016 presidential bid.
And here is Cruz again, from July 30, 2011, supporting a wall as part of a comprehensive strategy to secure the border:
QUESTIONER: Do you favor a path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the U.S., stricter border enforcement, and/or the building of a border wall or some other policy or combination of policies?
CRUZ: There were a lot of questions in that piece. Let me lay out my position on immigration, because I can state it simply and in one sentence. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration. I am categorically opposed to amnesty. And I strongly support legal immigrants who follow the rules and come here seeking to work towards the American dream.
Now with respect to securing the borders, I approach this from the perspective of someone who’s spent much of his adult life in law enforcement. It makes utterly no sense that we don’t know who’s coming into this country. We don’t know the criminal backgrounds. Our borders are largely unsecured. And particularly in a post-9/11 world, that is lunacy. I support any and all possible efforts to secure the border. That includes fences, that includes walls, that includes technology, that includes helicopters, that includes drones, that includes manpower, that includes employment verification, that includes approaching it as a law enforcement priority. And right now, neither party is serious about doing that.
With respect to a path to citizenship or amnesty, I categorically oppose it. And the reason is, I’ve spent a lifetime working to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. It is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the rule of law to reward those who break the law. And you know, one of the people it’s most unfair to are those that are following the laws. There are immigrants who wait years and even decades to come here legally. And yet what amnesty programs say is that we’re going to take those that have chosen to break the law, and we’re going to reward them rather than insist that people follow the law. I don’t think that’s fair, I don’t think that’s right, and I don’t support it.
Mark Levin discussed this on his show:
Ted Cruz was the one, who first advocated for building a wall on southern border.