Abstract
In an unpublished paper of 1693 John Locke weighed in on a long debate in the English Parliament by declaring that there should be a “general naturalization” of all immigrants currently residing in England. His argument for this controversial policy was entirely economic and based on promoting England’s interest in achieving greater wealth. He wrote nothing about the interests of the immigrants (most of whom were escaping religious persecution) nor did he appeal to the moral and political theory he had so strongly proposed in Second Treatise of Government, published only a few years earlier in 1690. In this paper I look closely at the concepts of community and law in the state of nature and conclude that if Locke had employed the fundamental principles developed in Second Treatise he would have endorsed a humanitarian policy focused on the plight of refugees. The application of these principles has important consequences for contemporary debates in the United States and in other wealthy countries about the extent of the obligation to provide relief to foreigners escaping religious persecution, war, enslavement, hunger, and natural disaster.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Locke uses the word “naturalization” to mean the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality in that country. An “immigrant” is someone who has entered a country or region to which one is not native and who may or may not be naturalized. Locke uses the word “foreigner” to refer to an unnaturalized or “undocumented” immigrant.
- 2.
Although it is not a main concern, in Sect. 9.7 of this paper I argue that the strict limits Locke places on the amount and kind of property one can justifiably appropriate in the state of nature has implications for the moral and legal obligations that both individuals and nation states have to others who are in need of land for their survival.
- 3.
Locke does not regard young children, “lunatics and ideots” and “madmen” as either free or equal because they lack the mental capacity needed to understand the laws of nature (Sect. 60).
- 4.
I am assuming that this quote applies not only to those who create a civil society but also to those who create any type of association, private or public.
- 5.
There is no bright line telling us what family members fall within the group of those to whom we have special obligations. The obligation to give help and support to my sister is clear, but I do not seem to have the same obligation to my third cousins (most of whom I have never met).
- 6.
This quotation is edited with my emphasis on the concluding words “what tends… another.”
- 7.
Locke is here attempting to distance himself from Thomas Hobbes (1651, Part I, Chap. 13) who had earlier proclaimed that the state of nature is a state of war.
- 8.
Compare The Golden Rule (also known as the rule of reciprocity) as it is found in most of the world’s religions: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”
- 9.
Locke uses this phrase to refer to the “power of war and peace, leagues and alliances, and all the transactions with all persons and communities without the common wealth” (Ibid., Sect. 146). He also calls it a “natural” power “because it is that which answers to the power every man naturally had before he entered into society.”
- 10.
Originally published in 1897 under the title Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. See also the commentary by John Ladd (1998b, 158–162).
- 11.
The U.N. declaration of purpose is “to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations and promote social progress, better living standards and human rights.”
- 12.
“An intentional community, on this analysis, would therefore be a contradiction in terms” (Ladd 1998b, 167).
- 13.
I am aware of the vagueness of the words “use” and “improve.” A country might show it is “using” its empty spaces by preserving endangered species, protecting important watershed areas, or for the aesthetic enjoyment of the population.
- 14.
This implies that they are not required to take the land or be confined to it. As legal immigrants or naturalized citizens they would be allowed to move to any part of the country and compete with others for jobs. If they do not want the common land that is offered to them because (for example) it is not fertile, then they are free to purchase any private land that is more suitable to their purpose.
- 15.
You cannot appropriate any land you do not use. Suppose a civil society is just an aggregation of large land holdings, much of it unimproved. Using Locke’s “non-use” exception, all the unused land within the territory of that society must be returned to the commons. It can no longer be anyone’s private property nor can the society legitimately use its executive power to prevent others (including “foreigners”) from entering the commons in order to improve and so appropriate to themselves what they find therein.
- 16.
I suspect that some readers will see an analogy to the separation wall built by Israel along the West Bank, separating Israel from Palestinian populations. However, at this writing the Israeli separation wall is about 62 % complete, and little progress has been made on it in the last few years. Second, the Israelis call the barrier the “Wall of Security,” implying (perhaps) that the right of self-protection trumps the right of freedom of movement.
- 17.
I owe this objection to Robert Van Wyck.
- 18.
This would not necessarily be an open borders policy in which all who want to immigrate to a participating state are free to do so. Immigration could also be means-tested, that is, applicants must prove that they do not have the means to protect themselves against constant threats to their life, health, and liberty.
- 19.
WFM-IGP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization “committed to the realization of global peace and justice through the development of democratic institutions and the application of international law.”
References
Bier, David. 2013. Conservatives must reject the ‘the poor are parasites’ narrative. Competitive Enterprise Institute. http://cei.org/blog/conservatives-must-reject-poor-are-parasites-narrative. Accessed 8 June 2015.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.
Hooker, Richard. 1993. Of the lawes of ecclesiastical politie, bk. 1. Folger Library Edition. http://archive.org/stream/oflawsofecclesi01hookuoft/oflawsofecclesi01hookuoft_djvu.txt
Ladd, John. 1998a. The idea of community, an ethical exploration, part I: The search for an elusive concept. The Journal of Value Inquiry 32: 15.
Ladd, John. 1998b. The idea of community, an ethical exploration, part II: Community as a system of social and moral interrelationships. The Journal of Value Inquiry 32: 166.
Locke, John. 1980. Second treatise of government, ed. C.B. Macpherson. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Locke, John. 1997. For a general naturalisation. In Locke: Political essays, ed. Mark Goldie, 322–326. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pew Research: Hispanic Trends Project. 2014. http://www.pewhispanic.org. Accessed 3 Sept 2014.
Rector, Robert, and Jason Richwinen. 2013. The fiscal cost of unlawful immigrants and amnesty to the U.S. taxpayer. Heritage Foundation. Special Report of the Domestic Policy Studies Department, #133. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-andamnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer. Accessed 8 June 2015.
Resnick, David. 1987. John Locke and the problem of naturalization. The Review of Politics 49: 368–388.
Tonnies. Ferdinand. 1963. Community and society, trans. Charles P. Loomis. New York: Harper and Row Inc. Original German edition: Tonnies, Ferdinand. 1897. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft.
United Nations. 1948. Preamble. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Accessed 18 Dec 2015.
World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy. 2015. http://www.wfm-igp.org/. Accessed 8 June 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Houlgate, L.D. (2016). John Locke on Naturalization and Natural Law: Community and Property in the State of Nature. In: Cudd, A., Lee, Wc. (eds) Citizenship and Immigration - Borders, Migration and Political Membership in a Global Age. AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32786-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32786-0_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32785-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32786-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)