Abstract

In an unpublished paper of 1693 John Locke weighed in on the ongoing debate in the English Parliament by declaring that there should be a “general naturalization” of all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 far more radical policy that would have permitted the immigration and eventual naturalization of persons on humanitarian grounds. The application of these principles have important consequences for contemporary debates in the United States Congress and in other wealthy countries about the extent of the obligation to provide relief to foreigners who are escaping religious persecution, war, enslavement, hunger, and natural disaster.