The "inalienable" in "inalienable rights" does not refer to "aliens" it means that the general rights that Jefferson wrote about in The Declaration of Independence cannot be wrested away from U.S. citizens. The emotion is admirable though, Rob. Maybe you might want to think about taking some of that emotion about this issue & use it in an applicable way to reality.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence,
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
the document intended to very generally outline the rights of the citizens of America as being guaranteed "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness." It is also important to note that The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority & that it is a document that was written to expressly be forwarded to the government of Great Britain.
The truth is that rights are, always have been & most probably always will be a social construct, which means that the rights that we have that shouldn't ever be able to be taken away are actually really just granted to us under certain conditions. If that seems unfair, then I suggest you follow my applicable suggestion that I repeatedly offer forth & start spreading the word about passing a constitutional amendment to end all repeat terms of office in this country to possibly see Human Rights Justice really done one day.
Also, during the writing of The Declaration of Independence there was a noteworthy controversy & the word "inalienable" was changed to "unalienable" & The Declaration of Independence is commonly misquoted even today.
...I found a link about it...
http://www.crf-usa.org/Foundation_do...eclaration.htm
However, members of the Declaration committee of the Continental Congress that had been selected to write the document included Benjamin Franklin and John Adams who had different beliefs. The word “
inalienable” was changed to “unalienable” and read “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by
their Creator with
certain unalienable
rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” In effect, it was the 18th century version of the 21st century argument about “intelligent design” versus “evolution.” I wanted to make
certain that the Beijing publisher understood what he was getting into so I phrased the issue using Chinese philosophy, which I had studied in my youth, as follows:
“Laotse told Confucius ‘What gives life to all creation and is itself inexhaustible – that is Tao.’ While there is no mention of Tao in my books, the essence of the founding of America is in the Declaration of Independence, which states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by
their Creator with
certain unalienable
rights and that among these
rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “Tao and Our
Creator appear, to me, to be the same – the source of life which is the source of energy, truth and light. There is much confusion in America and the rest o f the world about what those ‘unalienable’
rights are, given by Tao, or our
Creator or God, and what “
inalienable’
rights that are created by governments are. My books deal with this difference.” An “unalienable” right cannot be transferred. You cannot transfer your life to someone else – or your liberty or happiness. An “
inalienable” right, such as ownership of property or a title or a degree, can be transferred and governments can decide who owns property or has a title.