If you ask me, the so-called child refugees don’t look young enough to be treated like human beings.
It is a little known fact, if not an open secret, that those between the ages of 11 and 20 are at little risk of harm in any warzone you could name. Soldiers and paramilitaries are naturally conscientious sorts, who take every precaution to ensure that automatic weaponry, and anti-personnel devices dropped from high altitude, carefully discern between people on the basis of age.
This is why warfare is considered by many experts to be perfectly safe for everyone who is 11 years old, and above. Bullets stop affecting people at the very moment they enter their eleventh year of life. Barrel bombs do not shower anyone with shards of shrapnel if they are aged 13 upwards; and collapsed buildings, destroyed by heavy shelling, leave every inhabitant unscathed once they have reached fourteen years of age. It hardly seems necessary to point out that landmines only blow-up when they come into contact with anyone over the age of 9. Anyone older than that is simply too light-footed to trigger their explosion.
Books are best judged by their covers, in my view. Accordingly, many of the unaccompanied minors who have recently arrived in Britain are male, and tall. Nobody who possesses either attribute could possibly be at risk of drowning in the Mediterranean – it is, after all, no more than 75 centimeters deep, even at its most profound depths; while being anatomically male grants anyone an immunity to drowning, due to a fibromuscular tube, discreetly attached to the the lower oesophagus – which allows every man in existence to breathe underwater simply by raising their left elbow up and down, in a circular motion. While this may not be recognised by science, as such, it is certainly gospel in in the realm of folklore; which is a close second best, as a field of knowledge.
We can’t afford to make a single mistake on this, after all. A ‘child’ – for all we know – could be a septuagenarian gentleman, cunningly disguised as a young teenage boy, who resembles a slightly older adolescent male; solely in order to pass themselves off as as a five year old girl, and thereby gain access to support which is only available to people aged 18 and over. Certainly if the papers are correct, at any rate. The giveaway here is that, unlike teenage British boys, these ones have tufts of unsightly facial hair; use too much deodorant; and are socially awkward in the company of girls.
What’s more, direct experience of trauma famously has a rejuvenating effect on people – far from aging anyone, as apocrypha would have it, among the many treatments available in British health spas is a range of wartime experiences; which put vitality back into even the most decrepit and antediluvian of clients – from being deprived of food and medicine, to narrowly surviving artillery fire, through being detained without trial for several years, to the loss of close relatives before your very eyes – each simply takes years off somebody’s life.
Cause for suspicion all round, if you ask me – and we certainly don’t want to see the famously limitless British hospitality being abused.
The best way to check the age of refugees, therefore, is to adapt the approach of dendrochronology to border crossing controls. Just as with trees, border guards can simply dissect each child, providing a good cross-section; allowing an observer to count the number of rings within – thereby determining the amount of calendar years to a refugee’s name. This would also allow scientists to research other aspects of the person’s ecology: such as the level of moisture each refugee experienced during the growing season.
This system could be further buttressed, if need be, by radiocarbon dating – which would permit state authorities to determine how many of these refugees date back to the Postclassical Era; or perhaps even beyond that, to the period commonly known as Ancient: that is, the years 3600 BC – 500 AD, respectively. One or two of them at any rate, to judge by the looks of things.
You really can’t be too careful on such matters. After all, the perks of being a refugee in Britain are all but inexhaustible: from free British oxygen, and unlimited access to taxpayer-funded pavements, to all the street lamps that you could walk under – and a quite simply uncountable number of sand-grains and pebbles, on even the most homely British beach; to name but a few of the potential benefits wide open to anyone who turns up on our shores.
And is it really necessary for anybody to be claiming refuge at all, in this day and age? Can it be denied that people are perfectly safe traversing seas, irrespective of inclement weather? Dry land is an unnecessary luxury, in my opinion. Being mammals, human beings share many traits with the common dolphin; and you never hear them complain about living conditions in the world’s oceans. Far from it.
What’s more, it’s important that we protect our society from the kind of people who reject the prospect of living under either oppressive dictators, or beneath the auspices of fundamentalist sharia law; and consequently travel thousands of miles, in order to live in liberal democratic societies.
If you ask me, the kind of people who find liberal democracy and personal safety attractive are likely to be very suspect, indeed. This is perhaps why some commentators are afraid that refugees will arrive in Britain, and begin attacking innocent people.
Personally, I’m not so sure that they will fit into our way of life so easily.