An an era where science has unlocked the mysteries of DNA, mapped the human genome, and even predicted weather patterns with stunning accuracy, why should determining the age of those claiming asylum rely on interviews and guesswork?
Adult asylum seekers often lie about being aged under 18, hoping to exploit children’s services to advance their case.
Meanwhile naïve do-gooders argue lengthy processes of interviews and assessments are needed to dismiss these lies, even if this results in vulnerable kids being put at risk in the meantime. After all it’s not the children of the metropolitan elite which end up in these services, meaning many will be prepared to sacrifice them to their “principles”, just as we saw in the Grooming Gangs Scandal.
Having to follow complex assessment processes means foster carers or schools find themselves presented with someone they believe is an adult, but told they must treat them as a child.
Whilst every child in the school or foster care sees them as an adult, a drawn-out assessment process requires the service to treat them as a child in the meantime. On top of this comes the threat an activist Judge (Including the one who thought Gaza should be covered by a scheme for Ukraine) or a naïve do-gooder will believe their lies. Their claims and “human rights” laws being more important than child protection.
Scientific age assessment is needed for asylum seekers looking to exploit our system – Kevin Foster
GB News/Getty Images
This is why scientific age assessment is needed.
Scientific age assessment methods, such as dental analysis, bone ossification studies, and biometric evaluations, offer a reliable, evidence-based solution.
Scientific age assessment delivers a level of precision human estimation simply cannot match.
Far from being invasive these techniques provide clarity, fairness, and protection for society and individuals alike.
Studies of dental development, like the analysis of third molar growth, or X-rays of wrist bones to track ossification, are grounded in decades of biological research. These methods draw on universal developmental milestones, reducing human guesswork which leaves room for error or bias. For example, the Demirjian method, which scores tooth development, has been widely validated, offering clear criteria someone’s age can be assessed against.
Critics falsely argue such methods are invasive, citing radiation from X-rays or privacy concerns. Yet these objections crumble under any significant scrutiny. Modern techniques use minimal radiation, far less than a routine medical scan. The ethical frameworks which govern medical procedures also apply, extending them to age verification is a logical step, not a radical change. The alternative, leaving age disputes unresolved, causes greater harm, with sexually active adults posing as children placed in settings and services meant to protect vulnerable children from them.
Labour are looking to repeal the law which allows claims to be a child of those refusing to undergo a simple medical assessment to be dismissed.
Getty Images
Advances in technology have made dental and skeletal analyses more accessible on the frontline, with portable tools and streamlined processes reducing both expense and time. Being able to quickly use age assessment systems, alongside trained staff, means the claims of those trying it on at the border or when first encountered by immigration enforcement, can be quickly and effectively dismissed.
Countries across Europe are already using scientific age assessment to cut through bureaucratic tangles with data-driven clarity. Such age assessment methods anchor decision making in science and evidence, not feelings and emotions. In a world which demands accountability and precision, clinging to outdated guesswork is indefensible.
Bizarrely Labour Ministers are looking to take a step back in time and repeal the law which allows claims to be a child of those refusing to undergo a simple medical assessment to be dismissed.
Labour needs to recognise embracing modern age assessment methods isn’t just a scientific choice, it’s a moral one which ensures children are protected.