Elusive Citizenship: Immigration, Asian Americans, and the Paradox of Civil Rights

3. “ One Body in the State of Nature”

“One Body in the State of Nature” “The Advantage of the Commonwealth” For Locke, one premise seemed obvious: it was clearly just for a commonwealth to protect itself from persons it did not want. This was first because the original creation of a commonwealth, as he saw it, “harmed no one.” Everyone else in the state of nature was still free to make his own commonwealth through mutual consent.1 Of the existing commonwealths , the fact that they were created was a remarkable thing in and of itself. That men could join together for self-protection and reject mutual predation was so against the natural tendencies of so many men, perhaps all of humanity, that when such a society arose, it was a rare thing indeed and worthy of protection.2 As for those outside such an auspicious and beneficial set of relationships, the commonwealth had no duty to accept them, nor did they have any presumptive right to be admitted. Of course, such persons could be admitted, but according to guidelines that account primarily “for the advantage of the commonwealth.” “What is done in reference to foreigners, depending much on their actions and the variations of designs and interests, must be left in great part to the prudence of those who have this power committed to them, to be managed by the best of their skill for the advantage of the commonwealth.”3 The commonwealth may assert a “federative power” to deal with strangers and other governments. “The whole community is one body in the state of nature in respect of all other states or persons out of its community.”4 Locke stated further that because existing states had no duty to accept strangers, strangers seeking membership ought to make themselves more attractive as potential members. And so, for example, potential immigrants should “depend only on what they bring with them, either their estates or industry, both of which 3 37 are equally profitable to the kingdom”; they should not be likely to become a public charge.5 Overall, the Lockean commonwealth truly was “one body,” organized in such a way as to provide stability and protection in the midst of a chaotic, predatory world. In this type of world, where even Christians routinely victimized “innocent” savages and violence and wrong marked the most civilized cultures, it was no small thing that a commonwealth would “prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion.”6 Here, where Locke’s work indicated a sobering admission of men’s savagery as well as a faith in their ability to rise above it, the survival of the commonwealth depends on the right to protect itself against very real threats. Moreover, for Locke, the existence of the bounded commonwealth gave men a special place to articulate and confront differences without treachery. One of the advantages of a commonwealth was that it could provide a common forum for articulating the law of nature and be at the same time a place of tolerance in matters of conscience or religious belief. Locke spoke from personal experience: in a world in which secular affairs were routinely rendered bloody and vicious on account of religious difference , the Lockean commonwealth could be a place where men did not impose matters of conscience on one another. Among themselves, they could practice tolerance.7 Also, in the same way, the trouble with the state of nature was not the absence of law, but rather the ambiguity of the law of nature, since reasonable men could differ of the exact requirements of that law. The bounded commonwealth was essential in this regard because it gave its members the space to articulate and bind one another to a settled meaning of the law of nature, so as to give themselves determinate rules that did not exist before in the state of nature.8 In this regard, an unbounded commonwealth would be both illogical and unwieldy. In size and scope, it would be no different than the state of nature, and perhaps for that reason it does not appear as a legitimate or workable option anywhere in Locke’s work. Conversely, settling questions of justice and fairness, such as those that the members of a commonwealth pursue, presupposed some closed, bounded framework. 38 | “One Body in the State of Nature” “The Due Growth and Development of a People Further Advanced in Improvement” For Mill, the...