The thing is that it isn't reasonable. You have to look at asylum seekers and work out the percentage of each. I think the percentage for "criminals" is almost 0%.As for the other three groups you describe, ie
- bona-fide asylum seekers
- economic migrants
your proposed solution sounds reasonable, although, I can imagine that determining the status of each individual may take some time, after all, it is hardly going to be a case of having a series of doors marked "bona-fide asylum seekers"; "economic migrants" ; "criminals' is it?
If you *were* a criminal would you
(a) steal in the country you live in to try to make money
(b) Pay thousands of pounds to travel a long and dangerous journey risking life and limb to get to a country with better pickings
It's just not a realistic prospect. Does crime go up around asylum seekers? Yes. Unquestionably. That means they are criminals right?
Or does it mean that if you don't allow people to work, buy food etc, that they are likely to nick a mobile phone and try to get someone to buy it so they have money?
The share of asylum seekers in the local population is related to a 1.1% rise in property crime but no change in violent crime. A rise in A8 migrants as a share of the population is associated with a 0.4% fall in property crime and has no relationship to violent crimeBell et al. (2013) examine local crime patterns in England and Wales from 2002 to 2009 in order to determine whether there is any causal effect of an increase in the foreign-born population on crime. They focus on two large groups of migrants that arrived in the UK over this period. First, asylum seekers arising initially from the dislocations in former Yugoslavia and subsequently from war-torn societies such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, the large migrant flows coming from the A8 countries, particularly Poland, since 2004. The research showed that it is possible to derive causal estimates for both migrant groups and found that the share of asylum seekers in the local population was related to a rise in property crime, while a rise in A8 migrants was associated with a fall in property crime. Neither group was associated with statistically significant changes in violent crime. Estimates suggest that a one percentage point increase in the asylum seeker share of the local population is associated with a 1.1% rise in property crime. Since asylum seekers accounted for only around 0.1% of the population, the macro effects were small. A one percentage point increase in the share of the population that was born in the A8 countries leads to 0.4% fall in property crime.
Bell et al. (2013) suggest that the estimated effects for asylum seekers and A8 migrants may be the result of differences in the labour market opportunities of the two groups. The A8 migrants who arrived in the UK came almost entirely for work reasons and have higher employment rates than the UK-born. The motivation of asylum seekers was different, and they are not allowed to work in the UK upon arrival and also have reduced access to welfare benefits. Given the lengthy process involved in deciding asylum applications, this restriction is likely to have increased the relative returns to crime.