East Bay Sanctuary Covenant
AdvocacyOppose
Economic impact of work authorization
Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens
USCIS-2026-0067-0001NPRM
Comments
3,448
Last activity Aug 3, 2026
Deadline
1 day
Closes Aug 5, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
+3%
+21% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens
- Posted
- Jun 5, 2026
- Comment period
- Jun 4, 2026 – Aug 5, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-11285
- CFR
- 8 CFR Parts 106, 241, and 274a
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Analyzed 3,274 of 3,448 comments
95%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
+3%
Net support
Support1,991Oppose1,909Other70Not yet analyzed174
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is +21% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Union
1
Academic
2
Business
66
Individual
3,870
Advocacy
12
Other
19
Not yet analyzed
174
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Jun 5, 2026Deadline Aug 5, 2026
Jun 1Jun 15Jun 29Jul 13Jul 27Aug 3
Support1,678Oppose1,537Other59
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
50%
48%
2%
Business
62%
36%
2%
Other
42%
37%
21%
Advocacy
42%
58%
0%
Academic
50%
50%
0%
Union
100%
0%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Protect lawful employment authorization1,979
Employment authorization for humanitarian parolees1,375
Economic impact of work authorization1,160
Economic self-sufficiency for refugees734
Work authorization processing delays629
Expedite ukrainian work permits548
Ease of employment authorization475
Economic opportunity for immigrants356
Ease of obtaining eads247
Exemption for u4u parolees237
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
10 organizations filed this week — visible to subscribers.
| Organization | Economic impact of work authorization | Employment authorization for humanitarian parolees | Protect lawful employment authorization | Economic self-sufficiency for refugees | Employment restrictions for arrest records |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
East Bay Sanctuary Covenant AdvocacyOppose East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, an advocacy organization serving low-income immigrants, opposes the proposed rule because i | · | · | · | · | |
The National Immigration Forum AdvocacyOppose The National Immigration Forum opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it imposes significant new work restrictions, exp | · | · |
The National Immigration Forum
AdvocacyOppose
Economic impact of work authorization
Employment authorization for humanitarian parolees
Protect lawful employment authorization
27 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Form letters
Campaigns
Organized form-letter drives, separated from organic one-off comments.
16%of comments arrived through 2 form-letter campaigns — 530 of 3,313 comments. 2,687 are organic, and 96 are still being processed for campaign detection.
Campaign530Organic2,687Not yet determined96
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- 207 comments from the past week
207 comments match your current view and arrived in the last week. Read this week's comments with stance, commenter type, and AI summaries on the paid plan.
- Jul 27, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Sayed Basir AhmadiOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Kristi lauOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Kyle BecchettiOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-caused processing delays. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of humanitarian beneficiaries.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Mary Ann PadgettOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Ewaz MohammadzaiOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Susan SmithOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Ewaz MohammadzaiOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 24, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Ihsanullah HaidariOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 23, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Subhanullah ludinOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment → - Jul 22, 2026Comment Submitted by Elisabeth AshleyOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly strips Afghan allies of their right to work while they wait for government-delayed processing. They contend the rule is arbitrary, violates federal court rulings, and ignores the reliance interests of those the U.S. government brought to the country.
Read comment →