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:
- 149 comments from the past week
149 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 AnonymousOtherIndividualRead comment →
- Jul 27, 2026Comment Submitted by AnonymousOtherIndividualRead comment →
- 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, 2026Comment Submitted by Lucyna de BarbaroOpposeIndividual
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.
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 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 26, 2026Comment Submitted by AnonymousOpposeIndividual
An individual currently in the U.S. on an H-1B visa opposes the proposed rule because it would create a negative presumption against employment authorization based on arrests, even when no charges were filed or records were sealed. The commenter argues for a case-by-case review that considers an applicant's full history, including tax contributions, family ties, and long-term legal compliance.
Read comment →