To Give You a Size of the Immense and Growing Size of Illegal Immigration

[TomC]

On the other hand... given the rate of movement between states that we see in modern times, as well as the impacts of immigration and emigration... I think that every 10 years is probably too long.

There are a ton of antiquated and obsolete aspects of our government and official policies. That's one, for sure.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Introduction

I went ahead and made a program to run the Hungtinton-Hill method of apportionment. This is the standard that Congress uses and is described in a previous post. The numbers I got back reproduce the delegate allocations that are present in Congress which gives confidence in the programming. This method I call Original Huntington-Hill.​

​

I also ran 3 other methods.​

​

Original Intuitive simply takes the divisor of the census population divided by 435. This is about 760367. I do not know why there are other numbers out there, but this one is correct and it subtracts the DC population as I had attempted to do before but thought it was weird because it did not reproduce other numbers I was seeing at the time. This one, 760367, happens to also be documented which I found and confirms it is the right one. So in this method, if the decimal part of the state's number after dividing by the divisor is .5 or higher, it is rounded up. Originally Congress was also looking for the highest decimal remainders when something went wrong, like not enough delegates were assigned or too many in order to prioritize the last few delegate assignments. I did not bother to implement that.​

​

Next, I took the percentages of just the so-called statistically significant undercounts and overcounts from the report and used those to create an Adjusted Population for those few states. This is also summed up. Strangely, it is quite a bit more than the original population even though the documentation provided by the Census Bureau says they are similar. Therefore, I do not trust their numbers. In any case, I copied the Original Populations of states into this column for all states that had no significant difference. Their new sum, 331508865, was used to create a new divisor (by dividing by 435).​

​

Computing the adjusted populations and summing, and dividing, allowed for two more methods.​

​

Adjusted Huntington-Hill is running the standard Congressional method of apportionment but on the Adjusted Populations. Then, Adjusted Intuitive takes the Adjusted Populations and divides them by the new divisor. If the decimal part is above .5, it rounds up. As before, there is nothing additional.​

​

Any method that is discrepant in the resulting delegate count appears in bold font for the entire row where it is. This way we can look manually at discrepancies and decide what happened. Possibly what ought to be and count up legitimate results.​

Results

Original Population	330759736
Adjusted Population	331508865
Original divisor	760367.209195402
Adjusted divisor	762089.344827586

State	Original Population	Adjusted Population	Original Huntington-Hill	Original Intuitive	Adjusted Huntington Hill	Adjusted Intuitive
California	39538223	39538223	52	52 (51.998853)	52	52 (51.881349)
Texas	29145505	29716053	38	38 (38.330828)	39	39 (38.992873)
Florida	21538187	22314740	28	28 (28.326033)	29	29 (29.281002)
New York	20201249	19529436	26	27 (26.567754)	26	26 (25.626176)
Pennsylvania	13002700	13002700	17	17 (17.100553)	17	17 (17.061910)
Illinois	12812508	13069987	17	17 (16.850422)	17	17 (17.150203)
Ohio	11799448	11626217	15	16 (15.518092)	15	15 (15.255714)
Georgia	10711908	10711908	14	14 (14.087809)	14	14 (14.055974)
North Carolina	10439388	10439388	14	14 (13.729403)	14	14 (13.698378)
Michigan	10077331	10077331	13	13 (13.253242)	13	13 (13.223293)
New Jersey	9288994	9288994	12	12 (12.216458)	12	12 (12.188852)
Virginia	8631393	8631393	11	11 (11.351611)	11	11 (11.325959)
Washington	7705281	7705281	10	10 (10.133631)	10	10 (10.110732)
Arizona	7151502	7151502	9	9 (9.405327)	9	9 (9.384073)
Tennessee	6910840	7257761	9	9 (9.088819)	9	10 (9.523504)
Massachusetts	7029917	6875897	9	9 (9.245424)	9	9 (9.022429)
Indiana	6785528	6785528	9	9 (8.924014)	9	9 (8.903848)
Missouri	6154913	6154913	8	8 (8.094659)	8	8 (8.076367)
Maryland	6177224	6177224	8	8 (8.124001)	8	8 (8.105643)
Wisconsin	5893718	5893718	8	8 (7.751147)	8	8 (7.733631)
Colorado	5773714	5773714	8	8 (7.593323)	8	8 (7.576164)
Minnesota	5706494	5495468	8	8 (7.504919)	7	7 (7.211055)
South Carolina	5118425	5118425	7	7 (6.731517)	7	7 (6.716306)
Alabama	5024279	5024279	7	7 (6.607701)	7	7 (6.592769)
Louisiana	4657757	4657757	6	6 (6.125668)	6	6 (6.111825)
Kentucky	4505836	4505836	6	6 (5.925868)	6	6 (5.912477)
Oregon	4237256	4237256	6	6 (5.572644)	6	6 (5.560051)
Oklahoma	3959353	3959353	5	5 (5.207159)	5	5 (5.195392)
Connecticut	3605944	3605944	5	5 (4.742372)	5	5 (4.731655)
Utah	3271616	3189020	4	4 (4.302679)	4	4 (4.184575)
Iowa	3190369	3190369	4	4 (4.195827)	4	4 (4.186345)
Nevada	3104614	3104614	4	4 (4.083046)	4	4 (4.073819)
Arkansas	3011524	3171361	4	4 (3.960618)	4	4 (4.161403)
Kansas	2937880	2937880	4	4 (3.863765)	4	4 (3.855034)
Mississippi	2961279	3088204	4	4 (3.894538)	4	4 (4.052286)
New Mexico	2117522	2117522	3	3 (2.784868)	3	3 (2.778574)
Nebraska	1961504	1961504	3	3 (2.579680)	3	3 (2.573850)
Idaho	1839106	1839106	2	2 (2.418708)	2	2 (2.413242)
West Virginia	1793716	1793716	2	2 (2.359013)	2	2 (2.353682)
Hawaii	1455271	1362741	2	2 (1.913906)	2	2 (1.788164)
New Hampshire	1377529	1377529	2	2 (1.811663)	2	2 (1.807569)
Maine	1362359	1362359	2	2 (1.791712)	2	2 (1.787663)
Montana	1084225	1084225	2	1 (1.425923)	2	1 (1.422701)
Rhode Island	1097379	1044625	2	1 (1.443222)	1	1 (1.370738)
Delaware	989948	938784	1	1 (1.301934)	1	1 (1.231856)
South Dakota	886667	886667	1	1 (1.166104)	1	1 (1.163469)
North Dakota	779094	779094	1	1 (1.024629)	1	1 (1.022313)
Alaska	733391	733391	1	1 (0.964522)	1	1 (0.962343)
Vermont	643077	643077	1	1 (0.845745)	1	1 (0.843834)
Wyoming	576851	576851	1	1 (0.758648)	1	1 (0.756934)

Discussion

There are 8 rows bolded which indicates across 4 methods there are a maximum 8 discrepancies in comparing any two. However, comparing any of one method against the original may produce much less than 8 differences such as 3 or 4. Here I do 3 comparisons of methods.​

​

1. Original Huntington-Hill (OHH) vs Original Intuitive (OI)​

​

If you focus on the bolded rows but then scan downward along these two columns, you will find 4 discrepancies:​

State	OHH	OI
New York	26	27 (26.567754)
Ohio	15	16 (15.518092)
Montana	2	1 (1.425923)
Rhode Island	2	1 (1.443222)

​

The standard method deducts 1 from both New York and Ohio as compared to the intuitive method. Meanwhile, the standard method adds one to both Montana and Rhode Island as compared to the intuitive method. You may observe that the decimal part of the delegate is in the .4 range for both Montana and Rhode Island, but the decimal part for both New York and Ohio is in the .5 range. This may be surprising, but as noted earlier the standard method we use is biased in favor of smaller states.​

​

The purpose of this comparison was to illustrate how our current process works in contrast to intuition.​

​

2. Original Huntington-Hill (OHH) vs Adjusted Huntington-Hill (AHH)​

​

If you focus on the bolded rows but then scan downward along these two columns, you will find 4 discrepancies:​

State	OHH	AHH
Texas	38	39
Florida	28	29
Minnesota	8	7
Rhode Island	2	1

In the adjusted version, Florida gains 1, and Texas gains 1. Minnesota and Rhode Island both lose 1.​

​

The purpose of this comparison is to illustrate how the actual process would work if the adjusted numbers were actually used in reality.​

​

3. Original Intuitive (OI) vs Adjusted Intuitive (AI)​

​

If you focus on the bolded rows but then scan downward along these two columns, you will find 6 discrepancies:​

State	OI	AI
Texas	38	39
Florida	28	29
New York	27	26
Ohio	16	15
Tennessee	9	10
Minnesota	8	7

This comparison is most interesting because the lack of knowledge about the exact process of apportionment might lead many people to make this comparison. Even in discussions here, we observe people using the divisor as I also initially thought to do. So I believe we can hypothesize that this is how the conspiracy theory started. We can also observe that there are a total of 6 discrepancies which is a number that is in common with the conspiracy theory that there were an extra 6 Democrats and missing 6 Republicans.​

​

What we do observe here is 3 states that are typically red and 3 that may be blue (is Ohio purple?) being impacted, with red states negatively and "blue" states positively. This does not necessarily translate to 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats.​

​

And as noted, the Post-Enumeration Survey results themselves are of questionable quality. Whether they are better than the census is an open question.​

Conclusion

None of the methods show an extra 6 Democrats and missing 6 Republicans.​

​

A comparison of intuitive methods (that are not used in the process) shows 3 typically red state gains, 1 purple/blue state gain, and 2 blue state gains. This comparison may have snowballed into a more dramatic version magnifying the difference and assuming partisan results based on "blue" or "red" states. In reality, following apportionment, there is redistricting and voting and those results may differ from predictions based on state gains or losses.​

​

In any case, the intuitive method is not used, but instead the Huntington-Hill method of apportionment. In that scenario, which is the actual Congressional process, there are fewer discrepancies with 2 red-state gains and 2 blue-state losses.​

​

Those also do not necessarily translate to two Republicans and two Democrats not merely because of the process following apportionment, but also because the survey results that the adjustments are based on are not necessarily improvements to the census.​

This is a winning post, thank you.

 

[RVonse]

We can also observe that there are a total of 6 discrepancies which is a number that is in common with the conspiracy theory that there were an extra 6 Democrats and missing 6 Republicans.

​

​

It should be clearly noted that Musk never called this a conspiracy theory.

The discussion has morphed from illegal immigrants being far too many causing mayhem and crimes in red states to illegal immigrants being used in census counts and looking the other way while republicans send them off in planes to the places they say they don't want them because that will increase the census counts TO FINALLY a discussion of raw census counts that pretty much ignores the whole illegal immigrant issue but is still alleged to be unfair because of GIANT differences in census vs error adjustments that turn out to be smaller differences with very disputable, low-quality things being called errors. So, essentially, what you are talking about is different but the same theme.

He instead carefully calls this an incentive why members of our political class will not change anything at the US southern border. They simply have an incentive not to fix our borders and to imply that anyone is a nut case is extremely insulting and disingenuous on your part..

Do you think math implies people are nutcases?

You pulled out the "conspiracy theory" phrase routinely used by lazy opposition to imply a nut case.

The CIA knew what they were doing when they invented this phrase after the JFK assassinations.

 

[laughing dog]

Then our insane political establishment decides we must do absolutely nothing with the certain and continuing invasion on our southern border!

There's a simple solution. Stop giving millions of jobs to undocumented employees.
No budget busting Wall necessary. No massive ramping up of border guard budgets. Start prosecuting illegal employers.
Tom

I have seen estimates that up to 80% of agricultural workers lack proper documents. Are you ready to stop eating?

 

[TomC]

I have seen estimates that up to 80% of agricultural workers lack proper documents. Are you ready to stop eating?

No.
I think employers would start insisting on an overhaul of our stupid system.
And they'd get it done because they have enough money to buy representation in Washington DC.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

I have seen estimates that up to 80% of agricultural workers lack proper documents. Are you ready to stop eating?

No.

I hope you have weight to lose.

I think employers would start insisting on an overhaul of our stupid system.
And they'd get it done because they have enough money to buy representation in Washington DC.
Tom

If you think they have enough money to buy effective representation in our capitol, don't you think they have already done it and that is why our immigration situation is where it is today?

 

[TomC]

If you think they have enough money to buy effective representation in our capitol, don't you think they have already done it and that is why our immigration situation is where it is today?

Yes I do think they have clout and that's why they don't want it and it doesn't happen.

Illegal immigrants are extremely profitable for the rich. They keep wages down and consumption up.

You seem to think that the people who sell me food are incapable of influencing the government. I'm saying that it is their influence preventing competent and humane immigration reform.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

You pulled out the "conspiracy theory" phrase routinely used by lazy opposition to imply a nut case.

The CIA knew what they were doing when they invented this phrase after the JFK assassinations.

Oh, good lord...

Abstract​

Conspiracy theories have been around for a long time, though how long is a matter of debate. As for the concept of conspiracy theory, it might seem reasonable to expect a more exact answer about the moment of its emergence. When do we first find people talking and writing about conspiracy theories? While much of the literature points to the twentieth-century philosopher Karl Popper and his famous work The Open Society and Its Enemies (1st edition: 1945), newspaper databases allow us to locate earlier occurrences of “conspiracy theory.” They reveal that the term proliferates in newspapers from the 1870s onward, particularly after the assassination of President Garfield in July 1881. What can this discovery then tell us about the modern-day phenomenon of conspiracy theories?

Conspiracy Theory: The Nineteenth-Century Prehistory of a Twentieth-Century Concept

AbstractConspiracy theories have been around for a long time, though how long is a matter of debate. As for the concept of conspiracy theory, it might seem

academic.oup.com

You really need to stop using fringe sources for your information. They continually make you look like an idiot. You could have at least checked before you posted such complete nonsense.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If there is an accurate enough account to show the census undercounted why don’t we use *that* count instead of the census? Am I missing something here? Sorry, I haven’t followed all the posts in this thread

Because the current method is to reapportion based on the US Census. Reapportionment only occurs every 10 years, when a new Census is done.

There's good sense in not having reapportionment done too frequently - it would be very unstable. Hypothetically, we could do a good estimate every year, and apportion as needed... but that would be a bad idea. Apportionment affects the districting within states, and those districts are what the representatives represent (theoretically anyway). The districts are supposed to be drawn such that they're all roughly equal in terms of the number of people being represented. If it happened every year, it would be constantly changing, we'd find ourselves having to fire the occasional congresscritter, or add new ones without sufficient preparation. It would be more problem than it's worth.

On the other hand... given the rate of movement between states that we see in modern times, as well as the impacts of immigration and emigration... I think that every 10 years is probably too long.

I understand the current method. The part I'm not understanding, and it's likely just due to my lack of time to read through all these posts and understand the statistics being presented, is how we have accurate information about under- or over-counting. That would seem to imply we have a way of counting that is more accurate than the census and thus why we can determine that the census was inaccurate. How much confidence is being placed in these under- and over-counting statistics?

The idea that I'm interested in is the claim that politicians are taking advantage of loose immigration policies in order to bolster representation in Congress and it's not clear to me how we actually know if and by how much this is happening.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We can also observe that there are a total of 6 discrepancies which is a number that is in common with the conspiracy theory that there were an extra 6 Democrats and missing 6 Republicans.

​

​

It should be clearly noted that Musk never called this a conspiracy theory.

The discussion has morphed from illegal immigrants being far too many causing mayhem and crimes in red states to illegal immigrants being used in census counts and looking the other way while republicans send them off in planes to the places they say they don't want them because that will increase the census counts TO FINALLY a discussion of raw census counts that pretty much ignores the whole illegal immigrant issue but is still alleged to be unfair because of GIANT differences in census vs error adjustments that turn out to be smaller differences with very disputable, low-quality things being called errors. So, essentially, what you are talking about is different but the same theme.

He instead carefully calls this an incentive why members of our political class will not change anything at the US southern border. They simply have an incentive not to fix our borders and to imply that anyone is a nut case is extremely insulting and disingenuous on your part..

Do you think math implies people are nutcases?

You pulled out the "conspiracy theory" phrase routinely used by lazy opposition to imply a nut case.

The CIA knew what they were doing when they invented this phrase after the JFK assassinations.

It's math and logic. No CIA was involved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then our insane political establishment decides we must do absolutely nothing with the certain and continuing invasion on our southern border!

There's a simple solution. Stop giving millions of jobs to undocumented employees.
No budget busting Wall necessary. No massive ramping up of border guard budgets. Start prosecuting illegal employers.
Tom

And how do you propose to do so?

Look at my e-Verify thread--it doesn't prevent it, it makes them work with stolen identities. It's like putting a fancy lock on a door with a big glass panel.

 

[TomC]

And how do you propose to do so?

Prosecution of illegal employers. I've said that over and over.
If you are unwilling to take the chance of being prosecuted for hiring a particular person, don't. Find someone else.

You might have to raise your pay.
Which I believe is why wealthy folks don't want to deal with immigration or support politicians who will. Illegal immigrants are extremely profitable.

Look at my e-Verify thread--it doesn't prevent it, it makes them work with stolen identities. It's like putting a fancy lock on a door with a big glass panel.

It doesn't make anyone hire them.
If an applicant doesn't appear to be a safe bet for hiring, don't hire them. Easy Peasy.
If you're willing to take the chance...

But the real solution is not to add a fancy lock to the door, it's giving more people keys.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If you think they have enough money to buy effective representation in our capitol, don't you think they have already done it and that is why our immigration situation is where it is today?

Yes I do think they have clout and that's why they don't want it and it doesn't happen.

Illegal immigrants are extremely profitable for the rich. They keep wages down and consumption up.

You seem to think that the people who sell me food are incapable of influencing the government. I'm saying that it is their influence preventing competent and humane immigration reform.
Tom

Or the influence prevents the worse influences of racists, bigots, and nativists.

 

[TomC]

If you think they have enough money to buy effective representation in our capitol, don't you think they have already done it and that is why our immigration situation is where it is today?

Yes I do think they have clout and that's why they don't want it and it doesn't happen.

Illegal immigrants are extremely profitable for the rich. They keep wages down and consumption up.

You seem to think that the people who sell me food are incapable of influencing the government. I'm saying that it is their influence preventing competent and humane immigration reform.
Tom

Or the influence prevents the worse influences of racists, bigots, and nativists.

What does that mean?

Maintaining the status quo will prevent "the worst influences of racists, bigots, and nativists"?

I don't think so. I want to change the status quo, because it could be done vastly better.
More humane, better for the USA economy, all around improvement
Except for one thing. The status quo is the most profitable policy for the current elite who can afford to buy government officials.
That's why there is no particular likelihood of change.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If you think they have enough money to buy effective representation in our capitol, don't you think they have already done it and that is why our immigration situation is where it is today?

Yes I do think they have clout and that's why they don't want it and it doesn't happen.

Illegal immigrants are extremely profitable for the rich. They keep wages down and consumption up.

You seem to think that the people who sell me food are incapable of influencing the government. I'm saying that it is their influence preventing competent and humane immigration reform.
Tom

Or the influence prevents the worse influences of racists, bigots, and nativists.

What does that mean?

Maintaining the status quo will prevent "the worst influences of racists, bigots, and nativists"?

It means that border and immigration policy might be more inhumane without their self interest that moderates the worst influences.

 

[RVonse]

One wonders why anyone would pay attention to anything Paul Craig Roberts says, let alone give it any credence.

Around 20 years ago he was predicting the US would become a 3rd world country by now. I know because I was reading him back then too. Well I don't think we are quite there yet economically. But politically there is a case to say the US is a banana republic now or at least our leaders act like banana republic leaders do. We have seen an effort to prevent a smooth transition of POTUS, government efforts to censor opposition in an election, and also using government as a weapon to prevent a candidate from running. So in comparison to US in 2000 I believe it is fair to say we have made some important strides towards becoming 3rd world status.

PCR timing was obviously off but the trend of his prediction has still been spot on accurate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One wonders why anyone would pay attention to anything Paul Craig Roberts says, let alone give it any credence.

Around 20 years ago he was predicting the US would become a 3rd world country by now. I know because I was reading him back then too.

You should probably detach yourself from the attachment you have to him make an objective list of his observations and predictions and then go through them one by one. I also fell for believing that guy many years ago. Then, I saw the science and stopped believing some of the CT stuff. Years later, I retrospectively thought upon an article he had written about FEMA camps and how it came to be that he had worried me and that I saw him as legitimate. But he was wrong. At the time, all those years ago, I read his credentials as a former member of an administration, a PhD, and those didn't necessarily convince me but they were a factor in taking him a little bit seriously. Another factor was that his CT was outing behaviors of right-wingers and he's a right-winger himself. We often see that as a pattern and may find it to be more convincing.

Sure PCR can be correct occasionally. He writes enough to be correct sometimes. However, his conspiracy stuff is often nutty. Take a look at his crazy claims about concentration camps. He praises an author Irving who is kind of a Holocaust denier...who claims Auschwitz was a work camp, not a concentration camp. Then, PCR in his own articles makes claims over the decades of the US being a police state often ranting about FEMA death camps, like after 9/11 and at the time of the pandemic for example. Those things never happened.

An objective observer of Paul Craig Roberts' writings HAS TO come to terms with these wild, false claims. I certainly learned my lesson!

Well I don't think we are quite there yet economically. But politically there is a case to say the US is a banana republic now or at least our leaders act like banana republic leaders do. We have seen an effort to prevent a smooth transition of POTUS,

Donald Trump did that.

government efforts to censor opposition in an election, and also using government as a weapon to prevent a candidate from running.

Lock her up, Lock her up! Russia, if you're listening...

So in comparison to US in 2000 I believe it is fair to say we have made some important strides towards becoming 3rd world status.

PCR timing was obviously off but the trend of his prediction has still been spot on accurate.

I don't know, man, from my perspective Ronnie Raygun was a bit of a liar and wanted a police state. Under his regime, things were just as bad, maybe worse for a lot of people subjugated by economics. And it was Paul Craig Roberts who worked for him. Things are different now but there are no FEMA concentration death camps. The closest thing we may have are immigration detention centers, but you are okay with those. So it is just not clear what your objective measurements here are and the framework you are using.

 

[laughing dog]

One wonders why anyone would pay attention to anything Paul Craig Roberts says, let alone give it any credence.

Around 20 years ago he was predicting the US would become a 3rd world country by now

And he was completely wrong.

I know because I was reading him back then too. Well I don't think we are quite there yet economically. But politically there is a case to say the US is a banana republic now or at least our leaders act like banana republic leaders do. We have seen an effort to prevent a smooth transition of POTUS, government efforts to censor opposition in an election, and also using government as a weapon to prevent a candidate from running.

Trump is the epitome of a banana republic leader. There is no censorship of opposition in our election. The gov't is not stopping anyone from running. Mr. Trump tried to overthrow the elected gov't. He violated the US Constitution (the supreme law of the land) which says he should be ineligible to run for the POTUS.

So in comparison to US in 2000 I believe it is fair to say we have made some important strides towards becoming 3rd world status.

PCR timing was obviously off but the trend of his prediction has still been spot on accurate.

I am sorry, but IMO, your conclusion is nuts.

 

[Harry Bosch]

One wonders why anyone would pay attention to anything Paul Craig Roberts says, let alone give it any credence.

Around 20 years ago he was predicting the US would become a 3rd world country by now. I know because I was reading him back then too. Well I don't think we are quite there yet economically. But politically there is a case to say the US is a banana republic now or at least our leaders act like banana republic leaders do. We have seen an effort to prevent a smooth transition of POTUS, government efforts to censor opposition in an election, and also using government as a weapon to prevent a candidate from running. So in comparison to US in 2000 I believe it is fair to say we have made some important strides towards becoming 3rd world status.

PCR timing was obviously off but the trend of his prediction has still been spot on accurate.

??? Banana republic? What country in the world has an economy close to the United States? China? Nope, not even close.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And how do you propose to do so?

Prosecution of illegal employers. I've said that over and over.
If you are unwilling to take the chance of being prosecuted for hiring a particular person, don't. Find someone else.

So you want to prosecute DoorDash over this??

What part of fake documentation do you not understand?

You might have to raise your pay.
Which I believe is why wealthy folks don't want to deal with immigration or support politicians who will. Illegal immigrants are extremely profitable.

Look at my e-Verify thread--it doesn't prevent it, it makes them work with stolen identities. It's like putting a fancy lock on a door with a big glass panel.

It doesn't make anyone hire them.
If an applicant doesn't appear to be a safe bet for hiring, don't hire them. Easy Peasy.
If you're willing to take the chance...

But the real solution is not to add a fancy lock to the door, it's giving more people keys.
Tom

Once again, fake documentation.

The reality of what you propose would be businesses would not be willing to hire non-native speakers.