The National Immigration Forum
AdvocacyOppose
Economic impact of work authorization
Employment authorization for humanitarian parolees
Protect lawful employment authorization
Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens
USCIS-2026-0067-0001NPRM
Comments
2,272
Last activity Jul 28, 2026
Deadline
6 days
Closes Aug 5, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-14%
+7% 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 1,735 of 2,272 comments
76%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
-14%
Net support
Support1,064Oppose1,314Other53Not yet analyzed537
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is +7% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Academic
1
Business
35
Individual
2,374
Advocacy
9
Other
12
Not yet analyzed
537
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Jun 5, 2026Deadline Aug 5, 2026
Jun 1Jun 15Jun 29Jul 13Jul 27
Support751Oppose942Other42
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
44%
54%
2%
Business
54%
43%
3%
Other
33%
50%
17%
Advocacy
44%
56%
0%
Academic
0%
100%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Protect lawful employment authorization1,042
Employment authorization for humanitarian parolees833
Economic impact of work authorization635
Work authorization processing delays485
Economic self-sufficiency for refugees325
Expedite ukrainian work permits309
Ease of employment authorization240
Economic opportunity for immigrants175
Ease of obtaining eads153
Exemption for u4u parolees136
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.
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The National Immigration Forum AdvocacyOppose The National Immigration Forum opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it imposes significant new work restrictions, exp | · | · |
5 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Form letters
Campaigns
Organized form-letter drives, separated from organic one-off comments.
18%of comments arrived through 2 form-letter campaigns — 313 of 1,744 comments. 1,388 are organic, and 43 are still being processed for campaign detection.
Campaign313Organic1,388Not yet determined43
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- 2 comments from the past week
2 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 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 → - Jul 20, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by AJ choOpposeIndividual
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 17, 2026Comment Submitted by Karen ShadeOpposeIndividual
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 15, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by AJ choOpposeIndividual
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 14, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Olena TerlygaOpposeIndividual
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 13, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Susan WillenborgOpposeIndividual
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 13, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Linda MurphyOpposeIndividual
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 13, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by AJ ChoOpposeIndividual
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 13, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Tasal SherzadOpposeIndividual
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 13, 2026MM5 Comment Submitted by Jane ClevengerOpposeIndividual
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 →