Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution does a risk analysis of providing asylum for refugees from Asia Minor in Syrian Refugees, Jelly Beans, and Murderers. His punch line: the incidence of murderers in the currently existing population of the United States exceeds the hypothetical incidence of murderers in the currently waiting population of asylum seekers.
That said, two maps suggest the possibility of some people preferring to remain in the control group, or perhaps preferring to risk dealing with the population they know.
Start with a map that circulated on Insta Pundit last night, turning "states with governors telling Washington NO" into electoral votes.
Apres-Obama, le landslide? As a commenter points out, Illinois is unlikely to flip, there being sufficent recipients of federal benefits in Chicago.
Then comes J. Christian Adams, providing a map identifying the shall-issue and no permit required states, where playing the Kalashnikov riff is likely to get you shot off the stage.
Which makes for some interesting social science, in case the states (California, Connecticut, New York) where public officials have been going out of their way to be welcoming, get more than their aliquot part of the poisoned jelly beans. Will researchers blame the type II error of taking the refugees at face value, or will researchers be able to capture the effect of leaving the existing population without easy means of defense?