Jefferson Didn’t Say ‘Some Men’ Are Created Equal

What it means to defend rights: even when it’s inconvenient, unpopular, or politically explosive.

Let’s start with something uncomfortable:

If a Venezuelan man crosses the border illegally, and he’s standing in U.S. custody, hungry, unarmed, and confused, he still has rights. Not privileges. Not customs. Not traditions. Rights. The kind you don’t need a passport for. The kind our Founders said came from “Nature and Nature’s God,” not from some bureaucrat with a nameplate and a pension.

And the moment we forget that, whether out of fear, politics, or just plain fury that “those people” are coming here, we’re not defending America. We’re defacing it.

---

The Difference Between a Right and a Really Good Idea

I want to start with a really important idea. It underpins this entire article.

Rights are not etiquette. They’re not social habits. They're not “just how we do things here.” A right is something you possess by virtue of being human, not by being American. You don’t earn it by voting correctly or entering at the right checkpoint. You don’t lose it because of your accent, your skin, or your desperation.

A custom can fade. A tradition can shift. A norm can break. Rights, on the other hand, are supposed to be unalterable, unalienable, and unyielding to the passions of the moment.

Thomas Jefferson didn’t say, “We hold these nice-to-haves to be occasionally relevant.” He said “self-evident” and “unalienable.” As in, try to take them away, and you're declaring war on the very idea of ordered liberty.

---

Due Process Is for Everyone—Yes, Even Them

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “due process, but only if you were born within 100 miles of a McDonalds.” The Fifth Amendment says, “No person shall be deprived...” Not “no citizen.” Not “no nice person.” Not “no one who came here the right way.”

Person.

Which means that yes, even people who break our laws, even people who shouldn’t be here, have rights. And when we deny that, even for the most aggravating, most visibly “other” individuals, we’re not just punishing them. We’re undermining the moral and legal foundation of our entire country.

---

When We Violate Rights to “Save the Republic,” We Lose It Anyway

You can’t defend the Constitution by ignoring it. You can’t save America by undermining its most sacred principles.

It doesn’t matter how broken the border is, how corrupted the media is, or how dishonest the politicians are. If your solution involves trampling rights, it’s not patriotic. It’s authoritarian.

Whether it's the right to bear arms or the right to speak freely, even when what you're saying is dumb, offensive, or completely wrong, those protections don’t come with an ideological asterisk. They're not progressive or conservative. They're not red or blue. They're American.

And we will fight for them for everyone or risk losing them for ourselves.

---

When Disagreement Becomes a Death Sentence

Just this weekend in Minnesota, a state legislator and her husband were murdered. Shot in their own home. Another legislator and their spouse were also shot in their home. Reports say the shooter may have been angry about a recent vote on whether undocumented immigrants should have access to public healthcare. But we don’t know for sure. The motive is still murky.

What we do know is that it happened right after two lawmakers crossed party lines on a deeply controversial issue.

I don’t know what was in the shooter’s mind. Maybe it was about immigration. Maybe it was because she defied her party. Maybe it had nothing to do with the vote at all.

But I’d be lying if I said it didn’t make me wonder.

Because I’ve crossed my party before. I’ve cast votes that made people on my own side furious. And now I find myself wondering: will someone come after me for that someday? Is my family safe?

That’s not the America I was raised to believe in. That’s not the country our Constitution was written to govern.

If rights are only safe when they’re popular, then none of us are safe when they’re needed most.

---

The Bottom Line: Rights Are for Humans, Not Just Citizens

The political climate will shift. Power will change hands. Mobs will form. But rights are supposed to hold steady. They are the bedrock we stand on when the storms come.

If we allow ourselves to believe that rights are conditional, based on birthplace, belief, or behavior, then we don’t believe in rights at all. We believe in privileges. And privileges can be taken away.

That’s why I was the only Republican to vote to prevent author and point-of-view censorship in public schools and libraries. Not because I agreed with every book. I didn’t. But because I believe in the right of young people to encounter ideas, even uncomfortable ones. That’s what liberty demands.

It’s also why I support Medicaid coverage for undocumented immigrants. Not because it’s popular, it’s not. But because I’ve seen who’s working our farms, building our homes, and contributing quietly to the communities we claim to care about. If someone is harvesting our food, fixing our roofs, or paying taxes, they don’t become less human just because they crossed the wrong line on a map.

Rights don’t come with an asterisk. They’re not performance-based.

That’s not the country I want. That’s not the Constitution we inherited. And it’s certainly not the legacy the Founders risked their lives to leave us.

So the next time someone says, “They don’t deserve rights,” remind them. That’s not how rights work. That’s how power works. And if we start confusing the two, we’re not building a wall. We’re digging a grave. For the Constitution. For the rule of law. For the moral high ground we pretend to still hold.

Rights are not rewards. They are restraints, on the mob, on the state, on all of us when we’re tempted to give in to rage disguised as patriotism.

Because here’s the real test of your values:
Do you defend the Constitution when it’s inconvenient?
Do you honor rights when they protect people you don’t like?
Do you still believe in liberty when the headlines make you furious?

If the answer is no, you don’t believe in rights. You believe in preferences.
And preferences don’t deserve monuments. Rights do.