“I say that any every man that hath any possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government”
When discussing Locke’s Second Treatise in class, we touched on the idea of illegal immigration and how Locke’s views would be applied to this concept. Locke believes that foreigners, immigrants in this case, are morally obligated to obey the rules of the land that they are occupying since they are actively taking advantage of the resources that the land, and the government of that land is providing. He calls this obligation “tacit consent,” the idea that we enter this form of contract simply by living and carrying out our lives in a land. He then goes on to say that being present in the commonwealth is not enough to become a true member of it. He writes: “And thus we see that foreigners, by living all their lives under another government, and enjoying the privileges and protection of it, though they are bound, even in conscience, to submit to its administration… do not thereby come to be subjects or members of the commonwealth” (Locke 324). This means that though a foreigner is bound by the law of the land, he cannot take part in certain privileges including the right to rebellion. Since these foreigners never gave explicit consent, or legally became immigrants, they owe more to the the commonwealth than the commonwealth owes to them.
I think this is a good interpretation of the "tacit consent" clause in Locke. However, I'm wondering if these conclusions mesh with Locke's proposition that every human being has certain natural freedoms. If an immigrant submits to this unequal relationship—of owing more to the commonwealth than the commonwealth owes to them—are they giving up their natural freedom in a non consensual manner? One could say that to give "explicit consent" and deliberately engage in the social contract requires going through legal naturalization proceedings. However, Locke also says that government power comes from the consent of the governed. Immigrants living in the US, who pay taxes (they pay an average share of 8 percent of their total income—more than the average 5.4 percent of total income that the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay) and follow laws are, in all respects, the "governed." To me, submitting to the US legal code seems like a form of explicit consent, worthy of citizenship privileges—even without undertaking the lengthy and difficult naturalization process. But I'm not sure if Locke would agree with this stance.
ReplyDelete