Clarification of Discretionary Employment Authorization for Certain Aliens

An individual Ukrainian refugee who entered the U.S. under humanitarian parole argues in favor of preserving and strengthening employment authorization for Ukrainians. The commenter emphasizes that legal work allows families to be self-sufficient, contribute to the economy, and avoid reliance on public assistance while providing stability for children traumatized by war.

An individual expresses concern that the proposed changes to Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) will create barriers for humanitarian immigrants, particularly Ukrainians under the Uniting for Ukraine program. The commenter argues that making work authorization more difficult to obtain or renew will hinder these individuals' ability to become self-sufficient, pay taxes, and contribute to the U.S. economy.

The commenter, a Ukrainian humanitarian parolee living in New Jersey, supports maintaining legal access to employment authorization. They argue that work permits allow families to support themselves, contribute to the economy, and pay taxes, while warning that losing such authorization would threaten their family's financial stability and safety.

The commenter opposes making employment authorization discretionary for certain aliens, arguing that a rule-based system provides predictability and meets workforce needs. They express concern that a discretionary system will create uncertainty, increase administrative burdens, and lead to inconsistent outcomes.

The commenter opposes making employment authorization discretionary for certain aliens, arguing that a rule-based system provides predictability and meets workforce needs. They express concern that a discretionary system will create uncertainty, increase administrative burdens, and lead to inconsistent outcomes.

The commenter supports the proposed action of clarifying and potentially restricting discretionary Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). They argue that the U.S. should prioritize highly skilled talent and innovation over low-cost labor to maintain economic competitiveness in the face of automation and AI.

The commenter supports the Department's effort to strengthen standards for discretionary employment authorization. They argue for stricter fraud detection, a review of the credibility of humanitarian claims, and limitations on employment authorization to reflect current labor market conditions and prioritize U.S. workers.

The Church of New Hope opposes the proposed action, arguing that it creates unnecessary difficulties for legal immigrants. They advocate for unrestricted access to the labor market for law-abiding immigrants to support both businesses and the economy.

The commenter supports the issuance of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), arguing that they convert immigrants into active taxpayers and contributors to the economy. They also highlight that legal work authorization promotes family stability and reduces the burden on public services.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it will cause significant economic harm to families and employers, destabilize communities, and ignore the reliance interests of current authorization holders. They specifically criticize the presumption of disqualification based on arrests and the potential for E-Verify requirements to unfairly burden workers.