Rights are unalienable. They are natural. They are inherent in your being. They are essential in exercising one's right to exist and one's ability to perpetuate that existence. They can require no action by others. They are universal and belong to all and only require that others do not interfere. If one claims they require demands upon others, they can not be a right, for they would be in conflict with the rights of the person/s being forced to action. True rights do not conflict with the rights of others. True rights cannot place a duty upon others. A job is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. Anything that imposes a burden, or demand on others is not a right. It is by definition and practice an affront and an assault on the true rights of others.
O.A.

I agree with the first clause of the statement and I disagree with the second. Perhaps it is a semantics issue or a connotative definition issue with the definition of a "Right". A right is something they are born with.
A person may loose a "Right" by their own actions but a privilege can be summarily taken away. A Privilege sis earned or granted to someone by a government or sovereign.
A right is fully implemented needing no implementation by others. It does need to be maintained by all or it becomes a privilege granted by the state.