'the authorities are actively going into the camps in Calais to encourage them to make asylum claims in France'
are they?
Yes. Even your buddies at Calais Refugee Solidarity are whinging on about how unfair it is that they are being encouraged to do so because, of course, they think they should be able to go where they like. The French want them to apply and be dispersed to accommodation. But apparently this is unfair because they don't like the accommodation they've been offered. They want their own houses and to live in particular areas.
calaismigrantsolidarity.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/mass-dispersal-the-strategy-of-the-french-state/
'Yes, there are some delays in places like Paris, but many other places where it takes 3 days or less to register'.
Codswallup. It can take a year to even get the papers to apply for asylum, as I said. There is nowhere it takes three days.
I love the way you just pick your facts out of the air and expect them to be unquestioningly accepted. Here is some information from a website from refugees which I will link to below. An appointment has to be made at the prefecture to collect the registration papers. The deadline for this appointment is 3 days. Many prefectures are meeting this. Some have delays, but the longest are 2 months in Seine St Denis and 1 month in Paris. Nothing like a year.
the deadline between their first expression of intention for lodging a claim at the Prefectures and the effective registration of their claim and the consequent delivery of the asylum claim certification has been reduced to 3 days.12 It can be expanded up to 10 days in case of exceptional situation. However, at the time of writing, the delay for registering asylum claims was of 15 days in the Rhône, 1 month in Paris and 2 months in Seine Saint Denis.
So even in the places where the delay is the absolute longest they're looking at 4 months from making their presence known to having had their papers fully received and registration as an asylum seeker finalised with temporary permission to stay until their application as dealt with. Nowhere even near a year 'just to get papers'.
www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/France/asylum-procedure/procedures/registration-asylum-application
'And if, as you're constantly claiming, they are Syrian, their colonial history is French, not British'.
I haven't. Some are Syrian, some are from ex colonial countries, as I said.
It's convenient how fluid these things are for you Emily. When you're arguing that they should be allowed in because of what they've suffered they're Syrian. When you're arguing that they want to live somewhere English is spoken they're not.
Never said it doesn't matter. Never said they were isolated incidents and have stated that attacks on women are actually very frequent on commonplace. I just don't believe the spurious and illogical claims based on the supposed homogenous culture of diverse countries and a religion that has millions of followers.
Not at all, I said all attacks on women should be taken seriously, it is you that thinks attacks by a particular kind of man are more heinous.
I didn't say the attacks were 'worse' because they were committed by migrants.
But you're doing it again. A migrant attacked by a refugee has a legitimate reason to be concerned and unhappy about living amongst French people because apparently they are completely entitled to decide that the French in general are all the same and intolerable to live with. You take their concerns seriously If a western woman is attacked by migrants and people question if there are cultural factors at play, or if a mass movement of young men from areas where women are treated abominably might be creating high risks for women's safety they're racist stereotypers who think 'spurious and illogical' things.
You've prioritised their victimhood, their right to question if their attacks are part of a wider culture and their beliefs about the groups their attackers belong to depending on the race of those involved. You believe one group is entitled to those concerns and the other isn't entitled to exactly the same concerns based on the race of those involved.
How? Are you comparing me with the Ku Klux Klan? Please explain his fascinating and outlandish theory.
Yes I am. Absolutely. I have constantly seen you excuse, minimise or deny any crimes committed by migrants. You are in favour of reporting of them being restricted. You do not wish to discuss if there are any cultural factors or predjudices driving these crimes. When the Cologne attacks were reported you worked from the premise that your favoured groups (migrants) were beyond reproach and you refused to believe the crimes were committed by them even when it became obvious they were. When you had to admit they probably had you made excuses and minimised.
Change the word 'migrants' to 'white' and that attitude can be transplanted to apply to lynchings in the Deep South. You make your judgements on how serious the crimes are, how aggrieved the victims should be and their right to be concerned about whether their attack had a base in culture or predjudice based on race. You are the racist Emily.