Kant states that "hospitality means the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility when he arrives on someone else's territory"(PP).However, at the beginning of the part on the Three Definitive Principles of a Perpetual Peace, Kant argues that any one who is not under a civil constitution can be treated as a stranger, because his/her unlawful status is a "permanent threat" to me (PP). These two claims seem to contradict each other.

According to me there are two possibilities:

1) The right of a stranger only applies to strangers who are under a civil constitution, i.e. citizens of a state. This, however, already qualifies the stranger, and the stranger ceases to be a total stranger. In the treatment of the third article, Kant however does qualify the stranger.

2) The right of the stranger applies to all inhabitants of the world, on the basis of the equality of their claims to the surface of the earth.

One can find evidence for both claims in the article on perpetual peace.

My question is whether we should take the right of the stranger to be something that only applies to someone under a civil constitution or that the right of the stranger belongs to people we do not have existing relations with and thus do not form a "permanent threat" to us.