What puzzles me(and I've had a more or less fruitless time trying to find a more detailed explanation of) in the context of this story; the Calais 'jungle', and similar is how the numbers break down in terms of what is 'supposed to be happening'; and how much of the (obviously dysfunctional) situation is due to theoretically obligatory standards not being met; how much is disputes over what the standards ought to be; and so on.
Obviously, given how much fun being homeless in Paris isn't, the people in question aren't here for the lulz; but are these "people who made it to Paris off-the-books by one means or another; and have had no evaluation of asylum claims"? Are people with processed and approved asylum claims here forming refugee camps because there exists vastly less infrastructure for dealing with refugees than there does theoretical right to refugee status? Are the people outside the assorted refugee-focused facilities the ones who did not get approved; but have either glacially slow or nonexistent deportation proceedings?
I'm really not trying to start a 'Eh, they're just illegals, why aren't they rounding 'em up?' here; but I'd like to be able to distinguish between "France agrees that X thousand people are legitimate refugees; can only actually be of assistance in 300 cases, is now playing a cruel and pointless cat-and-mouse game with people they've agreed can stay but don't actually want staying anywhere" and "It's much easier to get a denial than a deportation; so large numbers of people deemed ineligible for refugee status remain in the area; fall into a jurisdictional grey area". Even if you are opposed to both; those are quite meaningfully different flavors of dysfunction.