Aussie admits to making huge mistake before flying to the US and being sent back home after terrifying 12-hour detainment
An Australian writer who was deported from the US has revealed he made a huge mistake believing that 'cleaning up' his social media and online presence before flying into the country would help him make it past border officials.
Alistair Kitchen, 33, boarded a flight from Melbourne to New York to visit friends on June 12 when he was pulled to one side by a Customs and Border Protection officer during a layover at Los Angeles International Airport.
He was detained for 12 hours and had his phone taken away from him before being put on a flight back to Melbourne.
Mr Kitchen said he was refused entry to the US because of his political beliefs and his work reporting on the pro-Palestinian rallies that took place at Columbia University last year.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has since said this is 'unequivocally false'.
Mr Kitchen said he 'began to think about what precautions' he should take after 'stories of tourists being detained in and denied entry from the US' began to circulate in Australian media.
'I opted against taking a burner phone - a move that some legal experts had advised, in the press - believing it would provoke suspicion, and simply decided to give my phone and social media a superficial clean,' he wrote in The New Yorker.
Mr Kitchen lived in the US for five years before moving back home to Castlemaine, in regional Victoria, last year, and between 2022 and 2024 he studied at Columbia University.
He claimed US border officers were 'fundamentally unsophisticated' and believed he would be 'extremely unlucky to be searched at all'.
The writer felt prior to boarding his flight that if he were to be stopped it would be because he had been identified as a Columbia student.
He said if he was asked to hand over his phone an officer 'would not find photographs from protests, Signal conversations, or my Substack posts, which I took down in the week leading up to my flight'.
On reflection, the Australian writer said his method to avoid deportation was a mistake as he now believes border officers were 'prepared'.
He claimed 'a US government officer must have read my work and decided that I was not fit to enter the country' because the officer that grilled him during his 12-hour detention was not aware his work had been taken down.
'By the time a foreigner cleans his social media in preparation for a trip to the US, as much of our news media has been urging us to do, it may already be too late,' Mr Kitchen added.
After handing over his phone and passcode, the content of his device was downloaded by border agents, who subsequently found evidence of prior drug use.
The Australian writer (pictured) claimed he was grilled on his views on the Israel-Gaza conflict and his reporting on pro-Palestinian protests during his time as a student at Columbia University in New York
He was told he had not declared drug use on his Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) form, was taken to immigration detention and put on a flight home.
Mr Kitchen said he told the agents he had consumed drugs before in New York, where marijuana is legal, and that he had bought weed at dispensaries in the US.
His phone was not returned to him until he landed back on Australian soil.
'The individual in question was denied entry because he gave false information on his [Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) application] regarding drug use,' a DHS spokesperson told ABC News.
DHS did not specifically deny Mr Kitchen was asked about the Israel-Gaza conflict, but said the US, under President Donald Trump, had the 'most secure border' in American history.
The spokesperson said lawful travellers 'have nothing to fear' from measures intended to protect the US's security.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) warned Australian travellers that entry requirements into the US were 'strict'.
'Officials may ask to inspect your electronic devices, emails, text messages or social media accounts. If you refuse, they can deny your entry,' DFAT's Smarttraveller website reads.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Republican lawmaker with ectopic pregnancy nearly died amid new Florida abortion laws – but blames the left
Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack has revealed that she almost died last year as a result of her state's six-week abortion ban, which left hospital staff reluctant to treat her ectopic pregnancy for fear of criminal prosecution. Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, Cammack, 37, reported her experiences in an unnamed Florida hospital's emergency room on May 31 2024 when it was discovered that there was no way for her baby's embryo to survive and that her own life was in danger without action. A doctor discovered the embryo implanted where the fallopian tube meets the uterus, a cornual ectopic pregnancy, and frankly told the representative: 'If this ruptures, it'll kill you.' But after deciding against surgery, the facility's doctors and nurses had to be persuaded to give her the shot of methotrexate she required to expel the pregnancy. That was because the state's six-week ban had come into effect at the start of that month, causing staff to fear they could lose their medical licenses and be sent to jail if they gave her the drug, which blocks the flow of folic acid to the embryo to prevent its growth. Cammack was only five weeks pregnant at the time, the embryo had no heartbeat and her own safety was in jeopardy, but nevertheless the congresswoman found herself forced to pull up the letter of the law on her phone to argue the case and even put in a call to Governor Ron DeSantis, without being able to reach him, before staff relented and came to her aid. Florida regulators have since issued new guidelines to clarify the situation and Cammack, who is pro-life and opposes abortion except in case of rape and incest or when the mother's life is at risk, is pregnant again and due in August. But surprisingly, given her ordeal, the representative does not feel the law itself is at fault and instead blames Democrats for scaring medical professionals into confusion over their responsibilities. 'It was absolute fearmongering at its worst,' Cammack told the Journal while acknowledging that reproductive rights activists might draw the opposite conclusion from her story. 'There will be some comments like, 'Well, thank God we have abortion services,' even though what I went through wasn't an abortion,' she said. Cammack also conceded that the heated political atmosphere surrounding the issue in recent years has not served to put the best interests of expectant mothers first. 'I would stand with any woman – Republican or Democrat – and fight for them to be able to get care in a situation where they are experiencing a miscarriage and an ectopic pregnancy,' she said. 'We have turned the conversation about women's healthcare into two camps: pink hats and pink ribbons. It's either breast cancer or abortion.' She said it was vital that women lead the debate on reproductive rights among House Republicans because men outnumber them six to one within their caucus, also reporting that one of her male colleagues 'almost sunk under the table' when she mentioned breastfeeding in a recent conversation. Dr. Alison Haddock, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Journal it is becoming common for doctors in states that have restricted abortion access to worry 'whether their clinical judgment will stand should there be any prosecution.' 'This has been a real stress point for a lot of our physicians,' she said. Molly Duane, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, took issue with Cammack's argument that pro-choice activists were to blame for sowing confusion, pointing out that Florida's regulators had made it clear they intended to aggressively enforce their six-week ban while also failing to define ectopic pregnancy within the legislation.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Republican senators' proposed Medicaid cuts threaten to send red states ‘backwards'
Advocates are urging Senate Republicans to reject a proposal to cut billions from American healthcare to extend tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy and corporations. The proposal would make historic cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled people that covers 71 million Americans, and is the Senate version of the 'big beautiful bill' act, which contains most of Donald Trump's legislative agenda. 'With the text released earlier this week, somehow the Senate made the House's 'big, bad budget bill' worse in many ways,' said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Families USA, a consumer healthcare advocacy group, in a press call. The Senate's version makes deeper cuts to Medicaid and so-called Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) plans, 'both by expanding paperwork requirements and making it harder for states to fund Medicaid coverage for their residents', said Wright. If passed, the House-passed bill would have already made the biggest cuts to Medicaid since the program's enactment in 1965. With red tape and an expiration of additional healthcare subsidies to Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version would leave 16 million people without health insurance by 2034. CBO has not yet released estimates, or 'scored', the impact of the Senate proposal, but advocates and experts said the cuts are more draconian, 'punish' states that expanded Medicaid, and attack Medicaid by going after its byzantine financing structures. 'If we look at the big picture of our healthcare system that's where the inefficiencies are – not in Medicaid – but in all the groups profiting off the system,' said David Machledt, a senior policy analyst at the National Health Law Program, referring to Republicans' assertions that they are targeting 'waste, fraud and abuse' with cuts. 'What these cuts are going to do is look at the most cost-efficient program and squeeze it further, and take us backwards, and put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses.' A recent study found that expanding Medicaid, as was done during the Obama administration, probably saved an additional 27,400 lives over a 12-year period, and did so cheaper than other insurance programs. The same study found that about a quarter of the difference in life expectancy between low- and high-income Americans is due to lack of health insurance. Republicans, such as Senator John Thune of South Dakota, argue that their bill 'protects' Medicaid by 'removing people who should not be on the rolls', including working-age adults, legal and undocumented immigrants; by adding work requirements and by going after a tax maneuver states use to bring in more federal Medicaid funding. 'Removing these individuals is just basic, good governance,' said Thune. But experts and advocates argue the cuts will not only remove the targeted individuals, including many who are working but struggle to get through red tape, but will also place states in impossible situations with potentially multibillion-dollar shortfalls in their budgets. Both versions contain so-called work requirements, which analyses show will cause people to lose coverage even if they are eligible, experts said. Instead, the largest difference between the Senate and House versions of the bill is the Senate's attack on Medicaid's complex financing arrangements. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government, making it simultaneously one of states' largest expenditures and sources of revenue. The Senate's version specifically attacks two ways states finance Medicaid, through provider taxes and state-directed payments. With a provider tax, states bring in additional federal revenue by increasing payments to providers. Because the federal portion of Medicaid is based on a percentage rate, increasing payments to providers in turn increases the amount that federal officials pay the state. States then tax those same providers, such as hospitals, to bring the funding back to the state. Although this maneuver has been criticized, it has also now been used for decades. It's in place in every state except for Alaska, is legal and openly discussed. The Senate bill caps this manuever by cutting the tax rate by about half, from 6% to 3.5%, according to Machledt. In a 2024 analysis, the Congressional Research Service estimated that lowering the provider tax cap to 2.5% would effectively cut $241bn from Medicaid payments to states. Although the exact impacts of the Senate tax cap are not yet known, Machledt expects it would be in the billions, which states would then be under pressure to make up. 'We took great pains to close a $1.1bn shortfall caused by rising healthcare costs,' said the Colorado state treasurer, Dave Young, in a press call. 'To protect healthcare and education, we had to cut transportation projects, maternal health programs and even $1m in aid to food banks.' Because of taxing provisions in Colorado's state constitution, Young said: 'It will be nearly impossible to raise taxes or borrow money to make up the difference.' Similarly, the Senate bill goes after 'state-directed payments'. To understand state-directed payments, it's helpful to understand a big picture, and often hidden, aspect of American healthcare – health insurance pays providers different rates for the same service. Providers are almost universally paid the worst for treating patients who have Medicaid. Medicare pays roughly the cost of providing care, although many doctors and hospitals complain it is still too little. Commercial insurance pays doctors and hospitals most handsomely. To encourage more providers to accept Medicaid, lawmakers in some states have chosen to pay providers treating Medicaid patients additional funds. In West Virginia, a federally approved plan allows the state to pay providers more for certain populations. In North Carolina, state-directed payments allow the state to pay hospitals rates equal to the average commercial insurance rate, if they agree to medical debt forgiveness provisions. The first state-directed payment plan was approved in 2018, under the first Trump administration. These kinds of payments were criticized by the Government Accountability Office during the Biden administration. However, the Senate bill goes after these rates by tying them to Medicaid expansion – a central tenet of Obamacare – and gives stricter limits to the 41 states that expanded the program. Doing this will effectively be 'punishing them', Machledt said, referring to states that participated in this key provision of Obamacare, 'by limiting the way they can finance'. Advocates also warned of unintended knock-on effects from such enormous disruption. Medical debt financing companies are already readying new pitches to hospitals. Even people who don't lose their insurance and are not insured through Medicaid could see prices increase. When Medicaid is cut, hospital emergency rooms are still obliged to provide stabilizing care to patients, even if they can't pay. Hospitals must then make up that shortfall somewhere, and the only payers they can negotiate with are commercial: for example, the private health insurance most people in the US rely on. 'Folks who do not lose their health insurance will see increased costs,' said Leslie Frane, the executive vice-president of SEIU, a union that represents about 2 million members, including in healthcare. 'Your copays are going to go up, your deductibles are going to go up, your bills are going to go up.' Republicans hope to pass the bill by 4 July.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Perpetual crisis mode': how Trump uses emergency declarations to push radical agenda
Donald Trump's drives to pursue his radical policies on immigration, tariffs and energy may seem at first to have little in common beyond a shared Maga political agenda. But Trump has made spurious or thinly documented claims of 'national emergencies' to justify harsh illegal immigrant measures, sweeping tariffs and massive energy deregulation, say legal scholars, watchdog groups and Democrats. Some fear that governing by claims of 'national emergency' has become normalised under Trump, posing a threat to US civic society and political norms as he governs in a permanent crisis mode and authoritarian style. 'In any emergency-power regime, it's crucial that the 'emergency' trigger be carefully defined and cautiously applied, lest the state of emergency become the new normal. Yet that seems to be exactly what Trump wants – to govern in perpetual crisis mode.' said David Pozen, a Columbia University law professor. In declaring separate emergencies the Trump administration has relied on controversial or seldom-used statutes that critics say have been distorted and stretched to justify and implement his Maga policies, spurring legal challenges and some strong rebuffs in the courts. In response to Trump's dubious emergency declarations, lawsuits have been filed by liberal and conservative watchdog groups, Democratic state attorneys general and others. Some have led to temporary stays and angered the US president, his top officials and their close political allies. Pozen added: 'The US has a web of statutes that trigger specific emergency authorities in specific circumstances. Trump has been remarkably reckless in invoking these statutes, almost to the point of claiming a general emergency power of the sort that simply does not exist in our constitutional system.' What's more, Trump's embrace of emergency powers has allowed him to move aggressively in an authoritarian style with few checks except for court rulings that have slowed some of Trump's actions and created ongoing legal dustups some of which could reach the supreme court, say legal experts. Although Trump has long hyped crises and pushed conspiracies to advance his policies, his use of emergency powers to push a Maga agenda of high tariffs, enforce draconian, anti-immigrant policies in Los Angeles to combat protests and gut clean energy rules, seems to have reached new levels, say legal experts. 'Emergency authorities are not tools for presidents to enact their policy agendas,' said Liza Goitein, the senior director of the Brennan Center's liberty and national security program. 'They are intended for sudden, unexpected crises that can't be handled through the normal operations of government. Trump abused emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs and to reorient US energy production toward fossil fuels, bypassing Congress. There was no emergency in either case. 'And he's abusing military deployment authorities now to suppress protests against his immigration policies, authorizing the deployment of federal forces anywhere in the country where protests against Ice may occur regardless of whether they involve violence or law-breaking.' Goitein stressed: 'That's an abuse of emergency power that threatens the most fundamental right people have in a democracy: the right to peacefully express dissent and disagreement with their government's actions.' Little wonder that Trump's penchant to invoke dubious crises to justify exercising emergency powers has faced legal blowback: several courts, for instance, have rejected Trump's claims of a migrant invasion and using an emergency statute as justification to deal with it. Trump in March invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives the president power to deport citizens of nations involved in an invasion, war or 'predatory incursion', by contending that an invasion of the US was under way by the violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. Previously, that act had only been used three times before, during the first and second world wars, and in the War of 1812. But Trump's use of the act has been rejected by multiple judges who didn't buy the notion that the activities of the gang merited the law's use. Just last month the New York federal judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that there was nothing in the 1798 law that 'justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion''. Such court rulings temporarily blocking Trump's moves to deport people without due process or unilaterally impose widespread tariffs by declaring his actions as probably illegal, have infuriated Trump and provoked verbal attacks on judges by Trump and his top aides. Trump in late May, for instance, raged at judges who have temporarily blocked the administration from moving fast to carry out deportations with an all-caps attack against 'USA hating judges who suffer from an ideology that is sick'. On a related track, Trump's provocative order to federalize thousands of state national guard troops and deploy marines to cope with largely peaceful protests in Los Angeles sparked a lawsuit from California challenging Trump's action that US district judge Charles Breyer in mid-June backed. Using strong language, Breyer ruled that Trump was setting a 'dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity' by unlawfully federalizing the national guard without the governor's permission; but a three-judge appeals court, two of whom were Trump appointees from his first term, ruled on June 19th that Trump's order federalizing the guard can remain in place giving the White House a temporary win that California appealed on the 20th. Legal experts warn Trump's sweeping declarations of emergencies are dangerous moves to expand his powers in authoritarian ways and unjustified. Ilya Somin, a George Mason law professor, argued in Lawfare last month that Trump has ratcheted up bogus claims of emergencies that undercut the constitution and Congress to implement his agenda. 'The Trump administration has exhibited a dangerous pattern of invoking spurious emergencies to undermine the constitution, threatening liberty and circumventing Congress. This is most evident in the fields of immigration and trade policy. 'If not stopped, or at least curtailed, these policies could harm millions of people, imperil civil liberties and compromise our constitutional system. Abuse of emergency powers is far from unique to the current administration. But Trump has taken this tendency to new heights.' Somin has been involved in one lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of several small businesses at the US Court of International Trade. Other legal scholars warn that Trump's reliance on specious emergency power arguments and actions pose threats to the rule of law. 'My view is that all these emergency actions taken together are autocratic steps … Trump's instincts are autocratic,' said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor emeritus. Bowman said that in general giving a president emergency powers is premised on their acting in good faith and being rational, neither of which apply to Trump. 'Courts are not dealing with a rational executive, but a would-be autocrat,' he said. Bowman stressed courts must closely examine the factual bases for Trump's invoking dubious emergency orders and powers to see if the arguments justify his actions. To implement his tariff regime, for instance, Trump claimed in April that 'foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency.' Trump's sweeping assertion was rejected by two courts, but an appeals court has temporarily halted the more expansive ruling. Once again, Trump officials responded to their legal setbacks with angry attacks on judges, as they did late in May when the Court of International Trade ruled against them. The White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, blasted the ruling on social media as a 'judicial coup'. A day later Miller added that 'we are living under a judicial tyranny,' even though two of the three judges were appointed by Republicans, including one who Trump tapped for the court. On another legal front, 15 Democratic attorneys general last month sued Trump to halt his national 'energy emergency' declaration from his first day back in office, which the states argued was an unlawful attempt to speed permitting for oil and gas projects and ignore regulations. The state attorneys general said that the use of emergency powers to override normal permitting rules for hundreds of projects would cause enormous damages to historic and natural resources and undermine drinking water standards. 'Many environmental laws allow for emergency exemptions when there are genuine emergencies,' said Michael Gerrard, who heads the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. 'But their wholesale use for a manufactured emergency is contrary to law. The US has no energy emergency. We are producing more oil and gas than any other country in the world. 'Declaring a fake emergency is another way that the Trump administration is trying to bypass established laws and procedures to advance its various agendas. One of those agendas is to maximize both the supply of and the demand for fossil fuels.' Critics say Trump's drive this year to declare national emergencies with tenuous or phony legal bases pose clear dangers to democracy. 'Trump keeps citing statutes to give himself emergency powers where they don't extend nearly so far or where the facts don't remotely justify an emergency,' Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative for Maryland, told the Guardian. 'When he wants something, Trump doesn't care if he's violating the constitution or federal law. It's like kicking a chair out of the way.' Likewise, as Trump has ramped up claims of national emergencies, he has effectively bypassed the Republican-controlled Congress and eroded their authority with executive power grabs. Pozen sees Congress complicit in Trump's emergency moves which ironically undercut congressional powers. 'Even though Republicans control the House and the Senate, there has been no attempt to seek legislative authorization for Trump's most aggressive measures on the economy, energy, immigration and most everything else. It evinces enormous contempt for Congress.' From a historical perspective, Raskin sees Trump's reliance on using emergency powers as a page from the classic authoritarian playbook. 'Authoritarians thrive on emergencies. They love to create emergencies in order to invoke and exercise extraordinary authoritarian powers. This was the advice of fascist philosopher Carl Schmitt for dictators – declare an emergency to have the exception swallow the rule and never go back to the norm,' he said.
