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
+2%
+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 3,247 of 3,448 comments
94%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
+2%
Net support
Support1,972Oppose1,902Other69Not yet analyzed201
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
3,844
Advocacy
12
Other
18
Not yet analyzed
201
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Jun 5, 2026Deadline Aug 5, 2026
Jun 1Jun 15Jun 29Jul 13Jul 27Aug 3
Support1,659Oppose1,530Other58
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
50%
48%
2%
Business
62%
36%
2%
Other
39%
39%
22%
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 authorization1,959
Employment authorization for humanitarian parolees1,365
Economic impact of work authorization1,151
Economic self-sufficiency for refugees721
Work authorization processing delays628
Expedite ukrainian work permits542
Ease of employment authorization470
Economic opportunity for immigrants353
Ease of obtaining eads246
Exemption for u4u parolees235
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 3,292 comments. 2,667 are organic, and 95 are still being processed for campaign detection.
Campaign530Organic2,667Not yet determined95
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- 182 comments from the past week
182 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, 2026Comment Submitted by Yrylo SSupportIndividual
An individual is requesting timely work authorization, arguing that it is necessary to provide financial stability for their family, cover medical costs for their wife, and allow them to contribute to the economy.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026Comment Submitted by Elizabeth DavisOpposeIndividual
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.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026Comment Submitted by Lauren CrainOpposeIndividual
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.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026Comment Submitted by Yevhenia SSupportIndividual
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.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026Comment Submitted by eileen JardiniSupportIndividual
Eileen Jardini supports welcoming immigrants to the United States, arguing that they are hardworking and deserve a better life. She urges the government to be kind to those seeking refuge from poverty and war.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026Comment Submitted by AnonymousOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed regulations, arguing that they would deprive nearly one million people of legal work authorization. They claim these restrictions will cause financial hardship for families, harm local economies, and reduce tax revenues.
Read comment → - Jul 27, 2026Comment Submitted by AnonymousSupportIndividual
The commenter supports the proposed action to expand and protect lawful access to work authorization. They argue that providing work authorization provides families with stability, helps local businesses find dependable workers, and contributes to the economy by increasing tax revenue and reducing poverty.
Read comment → - Jul 26, 2026Comment Submitted by Tetiana KravchenkoOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jul 25, 2026Comment Submitted by Dave HeiarOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jul 25, 2026MM7 Comment Submitted by Connie RaperOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for individuals with humanitarian parole and restricts their ability to work for small businesses that do not use E-Verify. They argue the rule will cause job losses and economic harm to local communities.
Read comment →