Can an argument be fallacious for liberals yet sound for conservatives, and vice versa?

I recently made comments in some posts that I felt were becoming position arguments and straying from the main purpose of this site, which is determining if arguments are logically fallacious or not. After reading more responses and considering them, I began to wonder if arguments are fallacious or not based on ones political stance.

Initially, I thought that logic is logic, and an argument is sound or not regardless of who says it. (The same is not true for valid arguments. For an argument to be valid, it must be sound, and all statements must be true. We can certainly differ on whether we see certain statements as true or not.)

An example is this:

Immigrants pose a financial drain on the US economy.
Our economy suffers with a financial drain of this magnitude.
Therefore, we cannot allow immigrants to enter the country.

I see this as a sound argument. If we assume the first two statements are true, the last one follows logically.

On the other hand, I believe everyone can see how this can be a valid or non-valid argument based on ones political beliefs. Liberals and conservatives disagree on whether our economy will be affected by such a financial drain, or whether immigrants boost the economy enough that any financial drain is offset by an increase in productivity.

I for one am glad this site doesn't get bogged down in political discourse. I get more than enough of that on Facebook.

Just a quick correction, I think you meant to switch "valid" and "sound". An argument is only sound if the premises are true, so one's proclivity to accept the truth of premises would affect the argument's "soundness" (in their minds). All sound arguments must be valid, but all valid argument don't need to be sound.

Let's clean this up just to ensure that it is a deductive argument rather than an informal one:

P1. Immigrants pose a financial drain on the US economy.
P2. Our economy suffers with from a financial drain of this magnitude .
P3. Therefore, we cannot if we allow immigrants to enter the country our economy will suffer.

A few things to note:

1) Removed language that introduces ambiguity (e.g., "of this magnitude') - it isn't necessary
2) The conclusion, as it was originally written, came to a broad conclusion not supported by the premises. What if the good immigrants do outweigh the financial drain on the economy?
3) Regardless of one's political, religious, or other ideological position, the truth isn't affected. Like the saying goes, facts don't care if you believe in them or not; they're still facts. This doesn't mean that one can't believe an argument to be sound when it really isn't. Then the argument shifts from the validation of the argument to the validation of the (alleged) facts in the premises.

Hope that answers your question!

Excellent answer. Drop the mic.