You wrote that your "...understanding of rights is that they are inalienable - they are a part of our being, so we neither obtain nor lose them."
I say that would hold true for what are variously called Inalienable, Unalienable, Natural or Fundamental Rights (all of which are the same thing to my understanding).
But I believe that there are other classes of rights and that one such class is Civil Rights. Civil rights are dependent upon the society one lives in.
If my house burns down you may grant me the privelege of sleeping at your house. If my neighbor's house burns down you may extend the privilege to him. In neither case does the issue of Civil Rights arise as my neighbor and I have no Civil Right to sleep in your house. Due to your good graces my neighbor and I would have the privilege (power, advantage, franchise) to sleep at your house and this would be a privelege "...not generally possessed by others" unless you have a really big house and invited everybody.
Though you would not, some might even say that you have granted my neighbor and I the right to sleep in your house (subject to whatever conditions and circumstances you choose to levy.) In that same sense, for whatever reason, non-citizens in the US are granted Civil Rights in regard to trial by jury, due process and so forth.
And since we are in disagreement on the basics, I assume you will disagree with much if not all of that.
In post 48, you wrote: "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
Is that how you define a right?
In post 11, you wrote:
"There are various kinds of rights:
Natural or inalienable rights (Life, liberty, etc.) These exist even in a state of nature.
Civil rights (the right to vote, trial by jury, etc) These exist in a state of society and are dependant upon the society which has been established.
Legal rights, established in laws and courts."
How would you define natural, civil, and legal rights?