I've noticed a pattern at the WSJ, which extends much further than immigration politics. These people believe in capitalism, but they seem to quake in fear of being called racists. There seems to be a standing order to feature stories about non-whites who have something that might be presented favorably, in terms of business or conservatism. It is as if they were saying, for the ten-thousandth time, look, we like this guy, and he is not white! Please, look, LOOK, we love him, and he is NOT white! They must be desperate to appease those who would call them racist, because they defend businessmen from time to time. The left could notice this and bring them to a blubbering pile begging and bargaining for its life; all they have to do is call them racist, and not let up on it. Calling for a huge immigration of non-whites into the country is a cheap and easy way for them to say that they are not really about racism and keeping money away from the black man. It is easy because they know that such legislation has no chance. They must know that mass immigration will quickly end free enterprise in America, if it were on the scale of millions a year, and they started voting. The cost of education and medical care alone, even with no new legislation, would soon push us over into the category of socialist nations, such as the WSJ routinely criticizes. They are aware of the existence of racial quota policies, and can notice how this is greatly aggravated by immigration of automatic disadvantaged minorities. Yet they editorialize about ethnic conflict in other countries, as bad for business, while pretending not to see the same process underway here. Anti-caucasianism was perhaps avante-garde in the 60's, but for a timid JC echo of it to be given 40 years later, probably rubbing their hands together imagining that they have the formula to impress leftists and professors, and even the government's quota enforcers, is like being overawed by the exoticism of the shriners.