I agree with most of your post and feel you have stated the general issue pretty well.
"Actualy WSJ is pretty good at being for free markets rather than for protectionism or big business breaks."
I wanted to respond to this specifically. The WSJ favors big business, as opposed to real competition, in various ways, in my opinion. However, I will admit that I cannot remember most of the examples I have read over the years.
One that sticks in my mind is the way the WSJ opposes just about any antitrust action that has ever occurred. They say, and you might agree, the antitrust impinges on the market. This is wrong however. Monopolies destroy free market, hence some antitrust is necessary to maintain a free market. I will grant that some antitrust actions are abusive, but I don't think I've ever seen the WSJ support one.
An example to support my point: They opposed steel tariffs and other protectionism. I also think being against antitrust may be reasonable to a point as those laws are more abusive than helpful in recent decades. Free markets create more competition than govt rules ever can.
now, on immigration - how do we stop this Senate train wreck. They are crafting a liberal bill in order to compromise. Compromise, my foot, its a sellout.