Same here. I too used to enjoy reading the Wall St. Journal editorial page for its well thought out, conservative opinions. But they have become so one-sided on the immigration debate it is impossible to stomach them any longer.
Paul Gigot especially is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with the open-border mantra, and will even go as far as play the liberal game of hurling the "race" card at anyone who dares oppose it. He did this last year against FAIR and Numbers USA while they fought against the re-election of Spencer Abraham.
Anything short of the status-quo, which is mass-immigration, virtual open borders is unacceptable to them. That is unreasonable in politics, where compromise is what makes the system work. As it is, their position is on the fringe. The last time I saw the polls, 80% of the population want immigration controlled.
You have Gigot well pegged. I never did like Paul Gigot. I always found him to be duplicitous. Often he would write a tough conservative piece in his old WSJ op-ed column but when he got on a talk show he'd come off more like a liberal. I don't read the WSJ editorial column anymore precisely because of him. And yes, he is quick to pull the race card because IMO he doesn’t have the intelligence to effectively argue his fringe views on immigration and trade against smarter people with the facts on their side. It goes without saying that those who need to call people racists (and all the other favorites names like xenophobic, Nativist, anti-immigrant) have lost the debate and are left with trying to silence the better informed opposition with cheap political correctness.