INAL but it is your right to illegally cross the border of a Geneva convention signatory country and seek an asylum. So no, not the same.

I don't agree the implication is obvious at all. Interpreting it that way make it a total truism - nonsensical unless interpreted within a greater context.

And it looks to me that's just what the GP poster was trying to do - challenge others to argue with a truism while pretending that the context in which it was stated isn't relevant.