The number of people who are placed in the custody of the Swedish Migration Agency is increasing, according to figures produced by TV4 Nyheterna.
And the goal is for them to increase further.
But the system of locking up people who have had their asylum applications rejected is strongly criticized by human rights lawyers who say it is inhumane and also ineffective.
An asylum seeker who has been refused can be locked up for up to twelve months in one of the Migration Agency’s detention facilities. But many in detention cannot be deported, for example if they come from a country with which Sweden does not have a return agreement, such as Afghanistan. At the Swedish Migration Agency’s detention center in Märsta, TV4 Nyheterna met Syed from Afghanistan this summer.
– It feels like I’m waiting for nothing. I feel a great deal of uncertainty about the future, he says.
Syed’s deportation has not been enforced, he is now free but has lost his job while in detention.
The cost has risen
The number of people in the custody of the Swedish Migration Agency has increased in recent years, and according to the authority, it should increase even more. The cost has also risen and was close to a billion kroner last year. According to new figures that TV4 Nyheterna had produced, over 4,100 decisions on detention have been made this year. Only a little more than half as many people have actually been expelled from the detention center by the police and the Swedish Migration Agency.
– I think the system is very flawed. According to the European Convention, every measure in terms of limiting a person’s freedom and putting a person in custody must be absolutely necessary and it must be proportionate to the purpose. And it is not followed, says lawyer Ruth Nordström.
The Minister of Migration: Does not violate the European Convention
Migration Minister Johan Forssell (M) today does not answer questions about this loophole, but writes that he does not think that Sweden violates the European Convention on Human Rights.
– You have to set the rights of the individual vulnerable individual against the state’s purpose. If the state’s purpose is to effect an expulsion and that cannot be done, then one does not have a realized purpose. Then I also do not think that it can be said that it is absolutely necessary and proportionate. Here I mean that you have to think again, says human rights lawyer Ruth Nordström.