Naturally we were both wrong. At least, wrong in the sense that the Declaration of Independence reads
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.But I think we can both be excused for the error. This site makes a distinction between unalienable and inalienable. Unalienable rights are rights are inherent in you. They cannot be taken or given away. They can be abridged or denied. But they are still your rights. Inalienable rights are rights that can only be taken from you with your consent. They're yours so long as you claim them. But the Wikipedia entry on Natural Rights uses the terms inalienable and unalienable without distinction.
Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com both define inalienable as "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" and both define unalienable as "inalienable."
What's more, Fowler's Modern English Usage has an extended entry on in- versus un-, concluding essentially that we just have to learn word by word when to use in- and when to use un-, sometimes both are used interchangeably (inadvisable, unadvisable), sometimes both are used but have different meanings (inhuman, unhuman; immoral, unmoral), sometimes both are used but arguments rage over which is correct (inarguable, unarguable), and sometimes words flip depending on the exact form (inability, unable; unequal, inequality; unseparated, inseparable).
And, what's more still, it turns out that the Founding Fathers used the terms unalienable and inalienable interchangeably! The final version of the Declaration uses unalienable, but various drafts exist and both words are used. All of the drafts in Jefferson's handwriting use inalienable. So if your instinct is use inalienable, you have good company. Whereas the rough draft written by John Adams says unalienable, and Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress.
