Further treating the idea of consent, he describes consent. A child of an English man and woman born in France is subject to neither the king of England nor the king of France, except as much as they subject to the law of the land.
At maturity, when the child is no longer under the jurisdiction of parents they are free to choose allegiance to either. Governments only have direct jurisdiction over the land, and therefore, reach the owner of the land. But simply living under the jurisdiction of a government, enjoying its protection and conforming to its laws does not make one a member of the society. Becoming a member of a society requires a positive action.
We see this principle played out in Genesis where Abraham is nomadic, but when he stays within the bounds of an established civil society he conforms to their laws. When Lot is with Abraham, he submits to Abraham’s rule. When Lot moves to Sodom he submits to the laws of Sodom.
When Isaac is with Laban, and Moses is with Jethro, they submit to that family structure, but when they leave they establish their own families. Similarly, when Israel is in Egypt, they are a large family group, but not a civil society. While sojourning in Egypt, they conform to the laws of Egypt, even to the point of slavery. When the family of Israel leaves Egypt in Exodus, they establish a civil society with Legislative, Executive and Judicial systems, and though nomadic, they generally stay outside established civil societies. In the few instances in which they do interact with existing societies they are either in a state of war, or they seek safe passage across offering to pay for what they need while in transit, thus respecting the established laws of that civil society. So we see in the Bible, probably the oldest only complete record of the establishment of a large family group, and its transition into a civil society, all of the relationships potential relationships between an individual, families and civil societies.
Because all men are born naturally free, no one can be put under the government of another, but by their own consent, even if that consent is by surrender during a state of war. There is a presumption that those born within the jurisdiction of a government are members of that society.
We see this scenario played out daily. A person immigrates to America temporarily or permanently from another society. They retain their membership in that society, though the live here, and even obtain property. While within the geographic jurisdiction of the United States of America, they are bound to the laws of the State in which they reside, and the union. If they commit robbery, theft or murder; they will be subject to the prescribed punishment. However, they cannot vote; they have no say in the formation of the government nor its laws until they resign their membership in their former society, and claim allegiance to the United States of America.
Even among the States, you can obtain property in multiple States, and live in any of them occasionally. You are a member of the society of the State in which you claim your inhabitancy, which is generally expressed as the right to vote. You can only lawfully claim that right in one State at a time. However, you must obey the laws of the State in which you happen to be at any time. For example, as a member of the State of New Hampshire in New Hampshire, I am not required to wear a seat belt when traveling in a car, and I can carry a firearm concealed. However, if I travel to Massachusetts, I am there required to where my seat belt, and I cannot carry a firearm unless I have met the requirements of Massachusetts.
Locke concludes in paragraph 122:
But submitting to the laws of any country, living quietly, and enjoying privileges and protection under them, makes not a man a member of that society: this is only a local protection and homage due to and from all those, who, not being in a state of war, come within the territories belonging to any government, to all parts whereof the force of its laws extends. But this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws, and submit to the government he found there. 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, as far forth as any denison; yet do not thereby come to be subjects or members of that commonwealth. Nothing can make any man so, but his actually entering into it by positive engagement, and express promise and compact. This is that, which I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any common-wealth.