perhaps it means that "some aspects of (human) life on Earth are recognized as fundamental -- by definition they are beyond politics, and beyond any current versions of laws in any written human language" so .. the US Constitution is saying explicitly (using words including diety) .. we recognize that human law is not enough to fairly and completely spell out rights .. therefore these OTHER rights are "inalienable"

Where in the Declaration does it state that entering the US is an inalienable right? I'm confused.

It doesn't, but I took the "liberty" part to include "free speech", and I'm arguing that by using critical speech as a means to deny a visa, that's effectively the government taking away a right.

I'm not a lawyer or a political philosopher or an ethicist, I'm just a mediocre software engineer, so I will acknowledge that I'm speaking out of my ass on this; I'm just a guy who has read a few books and has a frustrating adherence to my principles.

You cannot take away a right to enter the US from somebody who does not have it in the first place. Only citizens and permanent residents have such a right. Even people given a visa do not have this right, they still can be turned away at the border without any of their rights infringed.

This is no different, for example, from applying for a research grant and getting denied on the basis of the application. The government examined your speech in the application and decided not to give you money, is this a free speech suppression?

"life" could apply to immigration, "liberty" should apply to immigration, and "pursuit of happiness" should apply to immigration.