Migrants should be detained on remote UK islands, a petition has said. The online document, set up Darren Chandler on September 3, stated: “Require the offshore detention of asylum seekers and criminals who are foreign nationals on remote UK islands away from the general population whilst providing them with humanitarian aid and shelter. This could keep the UK population safe and reduce the taxpayer burden. We believe asylum seekers should be housed on remote UK islands whilst their claims are processed and receive basic humanitarian support rather than being placed in local communities at the taxpayers’ expense.

“We believe the Government’s first duty is to protect British citizens and secure the borders. If the ECHR prevents deportations, they should remain there until they can be returned.”

At the time of writing, the petition has 28,362 signatures. It needed 10,000 in order to receive a response from the Government. The UK Parliament website has confirmed officials will reply, but it is not known then this will happen.

If the petition gets 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in Parliament. It will stay open until March 3. It comes as a 38-year-old man has been charged with failing to comply with restrictions imposed on a protest against the arrival of migrants in Gosport after a small boat crossing.

Hampshire Constabulary said around 350 people left Haslar Road at around 2am on Monday after a group of asylum seekers were brought ashore by coastguard, lifeboat and border security staff. The force had imposed conditions under the Public Order Act as well as powers prohibiting the wearing of face coverings.

A total of 12 people were arrested with suspects including 11 men aged between 22 and 59, and one 57-year-old woman. They were arrested on suspicion of offences including assaulting a police officer, drunk and disorderly, failing to comply with conditions put in place on the protest, criminal damage and racially aggravated public order.

Jamie Bennett, of Thyme Avenue, Whiteley, has been charged with failing to comply with a prohibited assembly direction and was bailed to appear at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, November 26. The other suspects have been released on bail pending further police inquiries.

PA reported that a force spokesman said: “A small number of officers were treated at the scene for injuries, but no-one in attendance from any agency or the public was seriously injured. One person suffering from chest pains was assisted by police officers before our colleagues from South Central Ambulance Service provided treatment.”

The arrests came amid increased tensions over small boat crossings with protesters gathering in ports when arrivals are expected.

New Petition Calls for Migrants to Be Detained on ‘Remote UK Islands’ as Immigration Row Intensifies

A new petition calling for asylum seekers and foreign nationals convicted of crimes to be detained on remote UK islands has reignited the debate over Britain’s immigration system, border security and the cost of accommodating people while their cases are processed.

The proposal calls for offshore facilities away from the general population, where asylum claims could be considered and people could receive basic shelter and humanitarian assistance. Supporters argue that the approach could reduce pressure on local communities and limit the expense of temporary accommodation. Critics, however, are likely to question whether remote detention would be practical, humane or consistent with the UK’s legal obligations.

The petition, launched by Darren Chandler on 3 September 2026, has attracted tens of thousands of signatures. It has passed the 10,000-signature threshold that triggers a government response, although reaching 100,000 signatures would make it eligible for consideration for a parliamentary debate. The petition is scheduled to remain open until 3 March 2027.

What Does the Petition Propose?

The petition calls for asylum seekers and foreign nationals described as criminals to be housed on remote UK islands, separated from the general population while their cases are processed or arrangements are made for their return.

Its central argument is that the Government should prioritise border security and public safety while reducing the financial burden associated with accommodating asylum seekers in communities across Britain.

The proposal also calls for basic humanitarian support, including shelter, rather than leaving people without essential provisions. Its author argues that individuals whose cases cannot be resolved immediately should remain in designated facilities until their status can be determined or they can lawfully be returned.

The idea reflects a longstanding debate about whether the UK should process asylum claims outside its main population centres. Supporters see geographical separation as a possible deterrent to dangerous Channel crossings and a way to reduce the visibility and cost of accommodation in hotels.

However, the petition is a call for a policy change, not evidence that the Government has agreed to establish such facilities. Signing a petition does not itself change immigration law or require ministers to adopt the proposed approach.

Why Is the Proposal Attracting Attention?

Immigration remains a major issue in British politics, particularly because of the continued arrival of people in small boats across the English Channel.

The issue involves several different questions: how the UK prevents dangerous crossings, how quickly it decides asylum claims, what happens to people who have no legal right to remain, and how the public costs of accommodation and enforcement should be managed.

For residents near temporary accommodation facilities, the debate can involve concerns about local services, housing pressures, community relations and the way decisions are communicated. For taxpayers, the issue raises questions about how much the asylum system costs and whether public money is being used effectively.

Those supporting the island proposal argue that a dedicated system could make accommodation arrangements easier to manage and reduce the need to place asylum seekers in hotels or other temporary housing throughout the country.

But the practical effect would depend on the location, capacity, staffing and legal arrangements of any facility. Moving people to an island would not automatically make their cases quicker to resolve or make the cost of supporting them disappear.

Remote locations can be expensive to operate because food, medical supplies, security staff and other essential services must be transported there. Facilities would also require appropriate healthcare, legal access, communications and arrangements for people with particular vulnerabilities.

Any claim that offshore detention would necessarily save taxpayers money would therefore need to be supported by a detailed assessment of its full costs.

Could Remote Islands Be Used for Asylum Detention?

The UK has previously considered offshore approaches to immigration control, and the wider question of detention outside mainland communities has been debated in Parliament.

In July 2026, MPs discussed an earlier petition calling for offshore detention facilities to process people who entered the UK illegally and arrange their deportation. That petition received more than 720,000 signatures before closing in March 2026.

The Government’s response to that earlier campaign said offshore detention was costly and impractical, while pointing to alternative reforms intended to improve border enforcement and the removal of people without a legal right to remain.

The latest petition therefore enters an established political argument rather than introducing an entirely new concept.

There is also an important distinction between a remote detention centre within UK territory and a facility located in another country. Their legal status, operational requirements and relationship with the UK asylum system could differ considerably.

Even within the UK, any detention policy would need a clear legal basis and safeguards governing who could be detained, for how long, how cases would be reviewed and how people could challenge decisions.

The location of a facility would not remove those responsibilities.

The Question of Public Safety

Supporters of the petition place considerable emphasis on public safety. They argue that people who have no legal right to remain should not be allowed to stay indefinitely while removal arrangements are delayed.

There is a legitimate policy distinction between asylum seekers whose claims are awaiting a decision, people whose claims have been refused but who may still have legal appeals available, and foreign nationals convicted of criminal offences who are subject to deportation procedures.

These groups cannot automatically be treated as interchangeable.

An asylum claim must be assessed on its individual circumstances. Some applicants may qualify for protection because they face persecution or serious harm if returned to their country of origin. Others may not meet the legal requirements. The outcome depends on the evidence and the applicable law.

Likewise, a foreign national’s criminal conviction does not mean that every aspect of their immigration case can be resolved without considering the relevant legal rules and any applicable protections.

The Government has powers to detain certain people for immigration purposes and to deport eligible foreign national offenders. But detention and removal decisions must comply with the law, and removal can be complicated where a person’s circumstances or conditions in the destination country create legal obstacles.

A remote-island policy would have to address these differences rather than assume that every person placed in a facility could be deported immediately.

Would It Reduce the Cost to Taxpayers?

Cost is one of the most prominent arguments behind the proposal.

Providing accommodation, processing claims, arranging security and managing appeals can place substantial demands on public funds. When cases take a long time to resolve, the cost of supporting people during the process can increase.

Petition supporters argue that a dedicated facility could provide a more centralised alternative to accommodation spread across the country.

However, the financial comparison would need to include the costs of building or adapting facilities, transporting people, employing staff, providing medical services, maintaining security and ensuring access to legal advice. It would also need to account for the cost of running the system over many years.

If a remote facility could process claims more quickly and lawfully, that might reduce some expenses. If it created additional delays, required extensive infrastructure or faced repeated legal challenges, the expected savings could be smaller than supporters anticipate.

There is also a difference between reducing the cost of accommodation and reducing the number of people arriving in the UK. A detention facility would not, by itself, dismantle the criminal networks involved in smuggling people across the Channel.

Preventing dangerous crossings would also require cooperation with other countries, effective enforcement against smugglers and a workable system for processing claims and returning people who have no right to remain.

Humanitarian and Legal Concerns

Any proposal involving detention on remote islands would raise questions about conditions and safeguards.

People held in immigration detention may include children, survivors of trafficking, people who have experienced violence and individuals with serious physical or psychological needs. A responsible system would need mechanisms to identify vulnerability and ensure appropriate treatment.

Detention would also need to be justified under the relevant legal framework. It cannot simply be imposed indefinitely because an individual has arrived irregularly or because their case is politically controversial.

The availability of legal advice and access to independent review would be particularly important if facilities were located far from major population centres. Distance must not prevent people from challenging detention or presenting evidence relevant to their asylum claims.

These requirements would not necessarily rule out every form of remote accommodation, but they would shape how any such policy could operate.

Critics of offshore detention have also raised concerns about whether isolation could make oversight more difficult and whether the arrangements would treat people with dignity. Supporters, by contrast, argue that centralised facilities could offer structured accommodation and more consistent administration.

The practical details would determine how credible either argument proved to be.

What Happens if the Petition Reaches 100,000 Signatures?

Under the UK Parliament’s e-petition system, reaching 10,000 signatures triggers a government response. Reaching 100,000 makes a petition eligible for consideration for debate, but it does not guarantee that a debate will take place.

Even if MPs discuss the proposal, a petition debate does not automatically result in a vote to introduce the requested policy. Ministers can explain the Government’s position, MPs can raise concerns and alternatives can be examined, but legislation or further government action would still be needed to implement a major change.

The current petition remains open until 3 March 2027, giving campaigners additional time to seek support.

The Government’s response will be important because it should clarify whether ministers consider remote-island detention feasible, what legal and financial obstacles they identify, and how the proposal compares with existing immigration reforms.

A Debate Far From Settled

The new petition highlights continuing public concern about the management of asylum claims, the cost of temporary accommodation and the pace of removals.

For supporters, remote-island detention represents a possible way to centralise accommodation, strengthen enforcement and demonstrate that people who have no right to remain will not be allowed to stay indefinitely.

For critics, the proposal risks underestimating the financial, legal and humanitarian challenges involved. They argue that a policy’s effectiveness should be judged by whether it resolves cases lawfully and efficiently, rather than simply moving people away from mainland communities.

Ultimately, the question is not only where people should be accommodated. It is how the UK can maintain secure borders, process asylum claims fairly, remove those who have no legal right to remain and control public spending.

The petition has created another opportunity for those questions to be debated. Whether it leads to a government policy change will depend on the response from ministers, the evidence about practical costs and effectiveness, and the legal safeguards that any proposed system would need to satisfy.