Words have power, and liars know it (Philadelphia Daily News columnist Stu Bykofsky)

WHEN your mother said that sticks and stones could break your bones, but names could never harm you, she wasn't entirely right.

Words can hurt. They can put ideas in a false light. Those savvy about language choose their words - or omit them - carefully.

That's how the abortion debate ceased to be a debate about "abortion."

It morphed into a battle of pros - pro-life vs. pro-choice.

Nobody on either side wanted to be against anything, I guess.

I'm against something.

I'm against those who cross the border between linguistics and lies. In the debate over illegal aliens, we are hearing some spectacular lies.

Mark Twain wrote that the difference between the right word and the "almost right word" is the "difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."

Just before upstate Hazleton was hauled into court, the Philly office of the Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition sent out a news release to announce a rally in Scranton "as Hazleton's anti-immigrant ordinance goes to trial in federal court ..."

That is a foul lie, an attempt to turn public sentiment against Hazleton.

Hazleton has targeted illegal immigrants, not "immigrants." It's just one word, but one word that means everything, like the difference between lightning bug and lightning.

In an e-mail, I asked PICC why it neglected to use the word "illegal."

It didn't respond.

In a news release, the American Civil Liberties Union said the ordinance "would prevent people who look or sound 'foreign' from living or working in Hazleton - regardless of their actual immigration status."

On the contrary, the ordinance says it seeks to "secure to those LEGALLY PRESENT in the United States and this city, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE CITIZENS of the United States, the right to live in peace ..."

The italics [printed here in capital letters - Ed.] are mine. The ACLU is lying.

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta has said repeatedly his town welcomes legal immigrants.

In an op-ed piece in the Inquirer last week, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The mean-spirited anti-immigration laws of Hazleton, Pa., went on trial Monday."

Mr. Romero is a mean-spirited liar.

He's entitled to characterize Hazleton's laws as "mean-spirited." That's his opinion. But when he calls the laws "anti-immigrant," he is lying. He's a lawyer and he knows what he's doing.

When he omits the word "illegal" - as those in his camp usually do - he's saying the law is an attack on all immigrants.

That is a lie.

The trial is expected to go on for another week.

Any time a newspaper or TV tells you the trial is over "anti-immigrant laws," that is either sloppy or a lie.

Both PICC and the ACLU acknowledge that immigration laws in this country are a mess.

I agree with them.

They both want reform.

I agree with them.

Their idea of reform, I think (they don't come right out and say this), is to give amnesty for all illegals now here, and prop open the door for millions more.

My idea of reform is to open the door wider to legal immigration, but penalize those here illegally. I would eject recent arrivals, but grant a statute of limitations for those with a clean record here for more than, say, five years. I would grant them permanent residency, but deny them citizenship as punishment for breaking our laws.

We can talk about it. We can have an honest debate on immigration.

But we can't have an honest debate with liars.