The Cape Cod Times (Mass.), April 16:

In 1883, American poet Emma Lazarus penned a poem that would eventually find itself as synonymous with open arms as the statue at whose base it stands. “The New Colossus” used words to define the United States as a nation open to new people in the same way that the Statue of Liberty visually defined that welcoming spirit.

Now the same continent that honored this country with that towering symbol is turning its back on a new generation of migrants seeking solace on foreign shores. The European Union, apparently unable or unwilling to make the morally correct choice, has decided it is better to pay off a neighbor with a questionable human rights track record to take in the tired, poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, rather than embrace the need itself.

The Syrian refugee exodus, a humanitarian crisis on a scale unseen since the post-World War II era, has been unfolding for years, but has accelerated during the past 12 months as millions of citizens, fleeing five years of civil war and indiscriminate bombings, have sought sanctuary outside the country of their birth. Although Turkey and Greece have shouldered a significant portion of the burden of this migration, they have by and large served as a stopgap measure, as many of the Syrian expatriates have had their hopes set on the promised land of Europe.

Europe, however, has been reluctant to accept its role as would-be savior. Although the collective nations of the European Union have seen vast swaths of their populations open their hearts and homes to the latest wave of immigrants, other, less openminded elements have rallied around the same anti-foreigner rhetoric that characterized some of the darker moments of Europe during the 20th century.

Now the leaders of these countries have penned a deal with Turkey that may exonerate them from financial culpability, but the morality and legality of their move is less certain. The agreement, which has been pilloried by both Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, allows Greece to deport refugees back to Turkey and, in exchange, Turkey will send a corresponding number of refugees who have been processed to Europe. The hope is that this will encourage would-be asylum seekers to follow official entry protocols rather than continue to stream unabated into Europe via illegal human traffickers.

Others have pointed out that although far from perfect, the deal offers something better than the status quo. These agreement apologists note that Europe could not indefinitely absorb wave after wave of immigrants, and that this unsustainable approach had already given rise to right-wing ideologies, which have been growing both in strength and popularity as the immigrant influx continued.

Rather than improving the situation, however, the EU-Turkey compact stands to further destabilize the region. Greece, which already had a tenuous grasp on the migrant situation, will now find itself inundated with EU advisers, who ostensibly will take over the deportation process. Turkey, with its questionable human rights record, now moves from borderline political pariah to the lynchpin in the European solution, likely stifling any ability to pressure Turkey into remaining a more open society. Caught in the crossfire, as always, are the most vulnerable: the men, women and children who have fled their countries with little more than the hope of a brighter future.

Obviously, the decision to repatriate thousands of migrants back to Turkey is an effort to send an unmistakable message to those considering the dangerous and often deadly trek: Stay home, because you are not wanted here.

Perhaps it is time for the United States to send our colossus back, with Lazarus’ words highlighted as a reminder of what a brighter future looks like:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The Providence Journal (R.I.), April 15:

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew went out of his way to assure skeptical senators last year that the Obama administration’s nuclear accord with Tehran would not allow Iranian banks to gain access to U.S. dollars or the American financial system. “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York . . . or hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks,” he said.

This was vitally important: While Iran is (supposedly) taking steps to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, nobody disputes that Tehran continues to finance terrorism through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. Granting Iran access to the world’s reserve currency would only strengthen its economy – and, consequently, its ability to sow bloodshed across the globe.

Thus, the Obama administration insisted that while it was willing to cut a deal with Iran over nukes, sanctions over the country’s support for terrorism, which preclude it from accessing dollars, would remain steadfastly in place.

The administration, however, apparently rethought its stance. According to reports last month by Reuters and the Associated Press, citing Treasury Department officials, the Obama administration planned to grant Iran access to greenbacks. “The Treasury Department has prepared a general license permitting offshore financial institutions to access dollars for foreign currency trades in support of legitimate business with Iran,” the AP reported. Secretary of State John Kerry chimed in later, saying that Iran should “absolutely” have access to the American banking system.

Proponents of easing sanctions on Iran have argued that the Islamic Republic deserves to be rewarded for complying with the terms of the nuclear deal. Lew, for his part, says the United States must avoid “sanctions overreach.”

Yet Tehran has gleefully thumbed its nose at U.N. resolutions since it inked the nuclear deal. In October, the regime test fired ballistic missiles. Last month, it did so again. A State Department official admitted that these actions had violated the “spirit” of the nuclear accord. And just the other day, the regime took delivery (from Russia) of surface-to-air missiles that “Israel and the U.S. fear … could be used to protect Iranian nuclear sites from air strikes,” the BBC reported. This is not a regime that deserves points for good behavior.

Many in the U.S. Congress recognize this grim reality, and moved late last month to scuttle any deal that would grant Iran access to dollars. Soon after, the Obama administration spelled out that there were no plans to give Iran access to the U.S. banking system.

So, this is a story with a happy ending – for now. It is important that Congress and the administration, however, check the impulse to grant ever more leeway to Iran, which does not have America’s and the West’s best interests at heart – to put it mildly.