The long-simmering internecine feud on the Right over immigration has taken an interesting turn. The editors of National Review, who embody the "enforcement-first" wing of the Right, have challenged the editors of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, who champion the "comprehensive" view, to a debate.

A bit of background for those readers unfamiliar with this: For a couple years now, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has singled out various conservative publications for criticism in its pages, publications like National Review, the Washington Times, etc. which don't believe the country should embark on comprehensive immigration reform without first securing the borders. In fairness to the editors of the Journal, at times the enforcement-first wing has clung to a non-negotiable position, namely, that under no circumstances should the United States create a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants. In fairness to National Review, the Journal has at times used incendiary and obtuse language to describe its opponents.

The pot boiled over finally when the Journal editorial board, which has begun taping its editorial board meetings, went on an NR-bashing session last week. It is a bit beneath the reputation of the Journal editorial board to have done this, but that it did so perhaps highlights the disconnect on the Right over immigration.

Today, the editors of NR responded:

We hereby challenge the Journal's editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing -- two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate's consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).

It shouldn't be a problem for the Journal's editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren't "rational" on the question, have no arguments, and are "foaming at the mouth," as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week.

Here's hoping the Journal's editors accept the challenge, not only for the spectator value involved, but also -- and more importantly -- because this is a debate worth having, certainly from the top conservative editors in the country. It recalls a time when many of the Right's most fervent battles were waged within the movement itself, battles that were at the same time exciting, smart and good for the country.