This article presents a study of the contradiction between the rhetoric of return, stressing that rejected asylum seekers should leave the country, and the reality of how migrants end up as legally stranded, in Sweden. Through a qualitative analysis of; 25 decisions by the Swedish Migration Agency, an internal quality report about the legal application, and the documentation in two complete individual casefiles, the study reveals assessments of facts which, combined with legal interpretations, push people out in social and economic destitution, i.e. they become superfluous with no right to residency and no way to leave Sweden. This position, the article argues, is produced in routine decision-making at the Migration Agency through (1) a negligence with regard to the key issue of practical enforcement barriers, (2) a complex and far-reaching organization of non-responsibility, and (3) an incommensurable circle of suspicion throughout the asylum process towards people seeking refuge. These technologies, the article argues, are in stark contrast to the idea of general basic welfare for all residing in the welfare state, and they tell a broader story of the continuous production and reproduction of unequal access to fundamental welfare services.