I see nothing wrong with Chinese wishing to live among Chinese. I find it to be perfectly natural. The same with any other group. The problem I find is that many people think that it is okay for minority groups to live amongst their own group, but if white people seek out the same preferences, they're brandished as the lowest of low. It appears to be a double standard, especially among something that appears to be a natural living condition.
While I do not condone groups such as the one mentioned in the article, for the obvious reasons of blatant racial hatred, I often wonder how much more diversity this country can take before the whole system collapses. I don't think I've ever heard of a diverse society being able to stay together without some type of chaos. Mind you, I'm not talking racially, but culturally, though racial obstacles are very difficult for people to overcome, on the collective. Cultural obstacles are next to zero of overcoming, collectively.
Now, being that immigration was mostly limited to European nations for the bulk of American history, of which a distinct western European culture developed, what are you to expect when the world "comes a knockin'", changing the very fabric of a nation, and all that has built up around it. My point is, you're going to have conflict. It's compounded when you have the "multicultural mogals" chanting, "you can keep your own culture", etc.
I don't want to be skeptical, for I hope that everything turns out fine, but given trends, history, and social ramifications on the government, elections, schools, etc., it appears that the future may be dim if we continue to allow immigration from non-western countries. Japan is a first world country, with a mix of western institutions, thus I don't see any problem. I'm mostly referring to third world, non-western dictatorships, etc.
Again, look at the argument, rationally.
"...When I first looked at it, I thought I must be seeing a model of a community full of racists. I assumed, that is, that each agent wanted to live only among neighbors of its own color. I was wrong. In the simulation I've just described, each agent seeks only two neighbors of its own color. That is, these "people" would all be perfectly happy in an integrated neighborhood, half red, half blue. If they were real, they might well swear that they valued diversity. The realization that their individual preferences lead to a collective outcome indistinguishable from thoroughgoing racism might surprise them no less than it surprised me and, many years ago, Thomas Schelling.
"In the same connection, look at Figure 2. This time the agents seek only one neighbor of their own color. Again the simulation begins with a random distribution (Frame 1). This time sorting proceeds more slowly and less starkly. But it does proceed. About a third of the way through the simulation, discernible ethnic clusters have emerged (Frame 2). As time goes on, the boundaries tend to harden (Frames 3 and 4). Most agents live in areas that are identifiably blue or red. Yet these "people" would be perfectly happy to be in the minority; they want only to avoid being completely alone. Each would no doubt regard itself as a model of tolerance and, noticing the formation of color clusters, might conclude that a lot of other agents must be racists.
"Schelling's model implied that even the simplest of societies could produce outcomes that were simultaneously orderly and unintended: outcomes that were in no sense accidental, but also in no sense deliberate. "The interplay of individual choices, where unorganized segregation is concerned, is a complex system with collective results that bear no close relation to the individual intent," he wrote in 1969. In other words, even in this extremely crude little world, knowing individuals' intent does not allow you to foresee the social outcome, and knowing the social outcome does not give you an accurate picture of individuals' intent. Furthermore, the godlike outside observer—Schelling, or me, or you—is no more able to foresee what will happen than are the agents themselves. The only way to discover what pattern, if any, will emerge from a given set of rules and a particular starting point is to move the pennies around and watch the results..."