I think the classical text book case here is Malaysia and Singapore. The former is about 70% ethnic Malay and 15% ethnic Chinese. Singapore is just the reverse.
I've done extensive business in both places. Ethnic Chinese hold nearly zero political power in Malaysia. But they pretty much run the economy. Chinese are seldom seen even in the low-level government bureaucracies, but they hold a near monopoly on positions of influence in companies save for the occasional Malaysian which is window dressing or public spokesman.
The Malaysian majority, even though they have political power to easily change this instead accepts it because they understand the Chinese do the better job of running the economy which makes their figurehead jobs and government jobs possible. This would be like SEIU or the welfare class voting Republican because they understand a healthy private sector generates more tax dollars for them.
Meanwhile, over in Singapore, the Chinese majority bends over backward to include the Malay and other minorities in the government as well as the economy. The Malays may, like the Mexicans in the United States, may complain that the majority doesn't do enough, but none of them want to return to their homeland.
You are of course correct.
However, I’d like to point out that enlightened self-interest doesn’t always prevent the party with political power from looting the party with economic power.
Couple examples from Africa:
Uganda 1972: Amin expelled the Indians, the backbone of the economy, and looted their property, handing it out to his cronies. Result was dramatic contraction of economy and impoverization of the country.
Zimbabwe, 2000 and ongoing. Much the same action taken against white farmers, destroying the previously quite prosperous economy.