Quite remarkably forgets in fact:
Even among progressive-minded people, there are reservations about those who have fled horrifying circumstances in Syria, Eritrea, Darfur, Afghanistan and other countries terrorised by war or dictatorship. Why don’t they simply seek refuge in countries neighbouring their own? What compels them to travel thousands of miles, across multiple borders, in order to make a new life on British soil? François Hollande’s France is hardly a war-torn dystopia, so why not stay there?
As a refugee seeking asylum you have a right that it will be granted.
However, that right is only exercisable in the first safe country you come to.
What you don’t have is a right to go jurisdiction shopping for where you’d like to claim asylum.
Someone who gets off a plane at Heathrow, having come directly from a war torn area, or where they have a likelihood of persecution (so, yes, being gay from certain countries, religious, racila, persecution, even being an enemy of the current government) has that absolute right to claim asylum in the UK. Someone turning up at Dover having crossed Italy and France does not: not unless they are claiming security from the French government.
Now, maybe it shouldn’t be this way but this is the way that the international law works on it. That international law largely built by the do-gooding lefties of course.
Strange that Jones didn’t mention that really.