In the decades when I, as a university business prof, got a free Wall Street Journal subscription, I found I agreed with their editorial positions most of the time. "Most" ... but not "all."
One topic upon which we always disagreed was immigration. WSJ consistently favored open borders, essentially no controls on immigration. I do not.
WSJ tried to put "lipstick" on that "pig," usually of a humanitarian sort. Their actual motivation was always clear ... cheap labor.
The business folks who are WSJ's base subscribers like cheap, plentiful labor, many are happy having illegal immigrant customers too. WSJ's editorial position normally conforms to the wishes of its business base, not for them the Tea Party viewpoint.
I don't fault WSJ for reflecting the attitudes of its subscriber base, but that does make the Journal somewhat problematic as the only non-progressive element of national mainstream print media. On this topic the Journal atypically does not speak for a majority of conservative voters.
