Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens

The commenter, a humanitarian parolee from Ukraine, opposes the proposed rule because it adds unnecessary barriers and delays to the employment authorization process for lawful parolees. They argue that the additional requirements for proof of economic necessity and E-Verify restrictions will harm their ability to support their family and maintain employment.

A Ukrainian immigrant living in the U.S. under the Uniting for Ukraine program supports the proposed action to protect access to employment authorization. The commenter argues that work authorization provides stability, dignity, and economic contribution for eligible families and individuals.

An individual who arrived from Ukraine under the Uniting for Ukraine program opposes the proposed restrictions on discretionary employment authorization for humanitarian parolees. The commenter argues that the proposal would create unnecessary delays and administrative burdens for families who need to work to remain financially independent and avoid public assistance.

An individual who currently works with children supports the proposed action, arguing that timely work permits for parolees promote financial self-sufficiency and economic contribution. The commenter notes that such authorization would allow them to open a children's development school and create local jobs.

The commenter opposes the proposed action, arguing that it will negatively impact legal immigrants and their families who are seeking employment. They specifically highlight that requiring E-Verify for renewals will create barriers for small businesses and rural communities with limited resources.

A retired nurse and Navy veteran opposes the restriction of work authorization for humanitarian parolees under category (c)(11). The commenter argues that work permits are essential for Ukrainian families to support themselves and contribute to the community.

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.

The commenter, an individual supporting a Ukrainian family under humanitarian parole, opposes the proposed rule because it would place an unnecessary administrative burden on small businesses. They argue that the rule would hinder the ability of legal residents to maintain stable employment and rebuild their lives.

Lauren Crain opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it would create hardships for vulnerable refugees and newcomers who are already struggling to integrate. She also notes that the rule could negatively impact small businesses and local farms by restricting their ability to hire these individuals to address labor shortages.

An individual supports the proposed action, arguing that timely work authorization allows parolees to achieve financial self-sufficiency and contribute to the economy. The commenter notes that such authorization would enable them to open a children's development school and create local jobs.