LETTERS: Arizona law, Islanders move and more

Poll shows majority supports Arizona law

Since the passage of the Arizona immigration law, the media has been reporting heavily on the protests, boycotts and lawsuits by numerous groups opposed to the law. However, on Page A32 of a recent Newsday, there was a small article reporting that a poll shows that most Americans approve of the law ; in fact, 73 percent endorse the provisions requiring people to show police officers documents proving their legal status when asked.

This shows that media coverage has been focused on the activities of a minority of the general population. Instead, the media should be focusing on what the majority want: immigration law enforcement, not "immigration reform."

Martin D. Kennedy

East Northport

Lighthouse stalling may lose Islanders. . .

Good job, Town of Hempstead. After years of stalling the Lighthouse Project, the Islanders are considering a move to Queens . I don't blame Charles Wang and can only imagine how frustrating the whole ordeal has been for him. I would be looking elsewhere, too.

It's unfortunate Hempstead officials have relied on the opinions of those who do not want change. The Lighthouse Project is a good plan. It would have brought much-needed jobs and housing to an area in decline. We need change. Change is adaptation and evolution. The opposite of adaptation and evolution is extinction. Welcome to Detroit, Long Island.

Linda Hyams

Commack

. . . but they should look before they leap

Before Charles Wang considers Jeff Wilpon's offer to help construct a new arena for the Islanders in Queens, he should try sitting in any one of the Citi Field seats with awful, or uncomfortable, views. One embarrassingly inept sports complex east of Manhattan is quite enough.

Manny Dar

Elmont

Will Kagan have conflict in U.S. cases?

The United States of America is the most prolific litigator before the Supreme Court, and the solicitor general is the country's representative before the court.

If Solicitor General Elena Kagan is confirmed as the new justice , she will be called upon to decide cases that she is now litigating on behalf of the United States. Should a lawyer for one of the parties to a case be called upon to decide that case? Will she be required to recuse herself from all cases involving the United States before the court? How long should any recusal requirement last?

Saul I. Weinstein

Woodmere