US denies arresting Australian writer because of his political views
The US government has denied arresting an Australian writer because of his political beliefs, saying he was turned away from the border for giving false information on an entry form.
Alistair Kitchen, 33, said he was refused entry to the US last week after being grilled about his views on the Gaza conflict and articles he wrote about pro-Palestinian protests.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told the ABC claims Mr Kitchen was arrested for political views were "unequivocally false".
"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 said on Wednesday.
Mr Kitchen said he admitted to previously taking drugs after a border agent searched his phone and claimed to have found evidence of prior use.
He said he told the officer he had used cannabis in New York, where it is legal. However, federal US law still prohibits the drug.
Mr Kitchen was travelling from Melbourne to New York to visit friends when he was pulled out of the customs line during a layover in Los Angeles.
He maintains he was initially interrogated about blog posts he penned on protests at New York's Columbia University against the war in Gaza.
"Customs and Border Protection (CPB) specifically and proudly told me I was detained because of my reporting on the student protests at Columbia University, before they proceeded to interrogate me on my views on Gaza," Mr Kitchen told the ABC on Wednesday.
DHS did not specifically deny that Mr Kitchen was questioned about the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The agency said the US had the "most secure border" in American history "under the leadership of the Trump Administration and Secretary [Kristi] Noem".
"This has allowed CPB to focus to actually vet and interview the people attempting to come into our country," the DHS spokesperson said.
"Lawful travellers have nothing to fear from these measures, which are designed to protect our nation's security.
"However, those intending to enter the US with fraudulent purposes or malicious intent are offered the following advice: Don't even try."
Mr Kitchen said there was nothing new about travellers being denied entry for past drug use but suggested the practice was now being used to bar foreigners for other reasons.
"What is new is the politically-motivated weaponisation of these policies to keep out forms of speech the US government does not want to hear," he said.
Adding to Mr Kitchen's distress, after 12 hours of detention in LA, his phone was not returned until he landed in Australia on a Qantas flight on Saturday.
CPB said it was "standard practice" that the phone and travel documents of a person being removed from the US were "placed into a packet and given to the airline".
Mr Kitchen previously said he was told by the Australian consulate the airline had discretion over whether to return the passenger's belongings once on board.
Qantas declined to comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Will AI solve our productivity problem or increase unemployment?
Just as the teeth-gnashing over our great productivity "crisis" is reaching a crescendo, the whole affair may be just about to solve itself. Ironically, the solution is likely to be centred around what's generally perceived as that other great existential threat, Artificial Intelligence. There's been so much noise about Australia's declining productivity in recent years, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has called for a roundtable discussion involving government, business and unions in August. Most of that noise has emanated either from those with an axe to grind or those who can't quite grasp the principle, let alone figure out if there is even a problem. Deceptively simple as a concept, productivity is devilishly complex when it comes to understanding the forces that impact it. That's why, even with a full-time Productivity Commission, and after years of debate, we're still really none the wiser. Much of the debate, wrongly, centres around tax. And, disappointingly, the August round table is likely to be dominated by gripes around tax instead of the emerging challenges of AI. "I expect, I anticipate, I welcome tax being an important part of the conversation," Mr Chalmers told reporters last week ahead of an address to the National Press Club. But does Australia have a productivity problem? Not really, according to this graph from our very own Productivity Commission. Clearly, our productivity growth in the 15 years leading up to the pandemic was below the previous decade and a half. But that was the case in almost every other OECD country. And our performance was significantly better than the US, most of Europe, including the UK, and the OECD average. Given we appear to be on the cusp of the fifth industrial revolution — where we will work with smarter machines and artificial intelligence — there's every chance the productivity problem will evaporate over time. So maybe we should save ourselves all the angst. Just to put it into perspective, our productivity is growing, so it's not exactly a crisis. It's just growing at a slower pace than previously. Why? Well, it's not that clear, even though various vested interests will tell you otherwise. Perhaps developed nations' productivity grew in the 1990s because deregulation in the banking system during the 80s unleashed torrents of money and new investment. Unfortunately, that imploded in 1987 when Wall Street crashed, inflation took hold, interest rates soared and a brutal recession gripped the global economy. So, there was a downside too. Or, maybe, it was the sudden rise of computers and the internet. Those changes certainly improved communications and enabled workers to operate more efficiently, the very definition of productivity gains. But back in 1987, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow was worried about it, prompting his now oft-quoted assessment of the then-burgeoning tech boom: "You can see computers everywhere except in the productivity numbers." His observation gave rise to what's now called the Productivity Paradox, which has had economists at each other's throats for decades. Some even dispute the existence of the paradox, claiming it all gets down to how you measure gains from innovation. The problem, they argue, is that innovation gains are counted "on an arithmetic scale when they should count on a logarithmic scale". One explanation for the apparent mismatch is that it takes years for the productivity gains to show up. Firms in the early stage either overspend or invest in the wrong equipment and insufficiently train workers who then take time to become accustomed to new technology. Or maybe, it's just too difficult to measure in an economy that delivers services instead of producing widgets. Way back in the mists of time, back in January before DeepSeek rocked everyone's world with a highly effective AI model that cost a fraction of the American versions, Silicon Valley's tech giants figured they would spend around $US300 billion ($470 billion) on Artificial Intelligence this year. So far, they're on track. But the biggest impact to date has been in the loss of jobs, not so much across the broader economy but in the tech world. It seems that AI is eating itself. Since the start of the year, tech firms across the globe have laid off more than 90,000 workers, many of them working in AI development, with more than two-thirds of those jobs evaporating in US firms at the forefront of the AI revolution. Intel, struggling under the weight of massive losses, is leading the pack, with Microsoft, Meta and Amazon all lightening their exposure to AI outlays. Amazon boss Andy Jassy last week warned further lay-offs were inevitable as the firm looked to replace workers with machines. There is now widespread fear that AI bots will displace large numbers of workers, leading to mass unemployment. Already, some business lobbyists are calling for greater "flexibility" within the workforce to enable businesses to more quickly and effectively adopt the new technology. That's code for making it easier to sack workers. But what they fail to recognise is that, unlike in previous times when machines took the place of unskilled workers, the rise of AI is threatening white-collar work. It is middle managers, professionals such as lawyers and accountants and possibly even lobbyists who trot out the same old lines year in and year out who may be in the firing line. It is the non-unionised, tertiary-educated sections of the workforce whose future is under threat and already, firms are cutting back on graduate intakes for their junior hirings. How many people lost their jobs when computers became part of the mainstream? Probably quite a lot. But the numbers aren't easy to find because the technology made many workers more efficient which, in turn, created new jobs. That's likely to happen again but it is likely to impact the upper echelons of the business world. AI is developing at a rapid pace. No longer is it simply scraping information off the internet for us and generating content — what is known as generative AI. It is now beginning to make decisions, in what's known as agentic AI. A recent study by Citigroup highlighted that this new incarnation, while similar to generative AI, has one important added feature. It can "interpret goals, make decisions and act across workflows". Banks already use a crude form of this for assessing loan applications and it will become more widespread for financial services businesses generally, including insurance and investment firms. Before long, these systems will infiltrate management systems more broadly. The Citigroup study asserts that these "are no longer just tools, they are part of the process". "You're not just triggering a task, you're enabling systems to complete processes independently." Australia's biggest bank, the Commonwealth Bank, is investing heavily in AI, as are most of our other major financial institutions. These changes are likely to revolutionise how we interact with each other commercially, speeding up processes and lifting productivity. But they will have major implications on how we work and particularly for our education system, to ensure future generations are adequately equipped to handle the challenges and opportunities. But don't expect to hear too much of this at the round table.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Bluff and last-minute orders: Trump's path to Iran decision
When Donald Trump said on Thursday he'd give himself two weeks to decide on bombing Iran, critics wrote it off as the US president using a familiar timeframe to put off difficult decisions. The next evening he left the White House for a fundraising dinner at his New Jersey golf resort, and much of the world seemed to believe that there was still space for diplomacy. In reality, Trump was already on the verge of making his mind up. A few hours after his arrival at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster on Friday night, the first B-2 stealth bombers took off from a US airbase. The next day, while the bombers were still in the air, Trump made the call on attacking three Iranian nuclear facilities, in the first direct US military strike on Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. "The president gave the final order to the Secretary of Defense on Saturday," a senior White House official told AFP on condition of anonymity. "In the week leading up to the strike, the president was continuing to pursue diplomacy, mainly through Special Envoy (Steve) Witkoff's efforts, while the Pentagon was simultaneously preparing the operation," added the official. - 'Misdirection' - Trump's "two weeks" gambit appeared to be part of a broader campaign of what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called "misdirection," which included several B-2s flying in the opposite direction as a decoy. Trump, the tycoon who prides himself as an expert on the "art of the deal," had ladled on the strategic ambiguity all week. First he flew home early from the G7 summit for talks with his national security team. Then he unleashed a barrage of bellicose social media posts against Iran's supreme leader. On Wednesday he said that "I may do it, I may not" when asked about striking Iran. Finally, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read out a statement from Trump in the White House briefing room on Thursday, saying there was a "substantial" chance of talks and that he would decide "whether or not to go within the next two weeks." It played into a frequent criticism of Trump for setting two-week deadlines on everything from Ukraine to health care and then ignoring them. But behind the scenes, Trump was increasingly determined, US officials said. Trump had opposed Israel attacking Iran right up until it did so on June 13 -- but afterwards he openly admired Israel's success and was talking daily to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel's achievement of air superiority over Iran presented Trump with a unique opportunity to hit the nuclear program that he had railed against since his first term. Trump was "briefed daily on the Israelis' efforts and the operation itself as he decided whether to move forward," the senior White House official said. The US commander-in-chief held daily meetings with his National Security Council in the White House's basement Situation Room as he pondered his options. And to head off opposition in his "Make America Great Again" movement to another Middle Eastern "forever war", he reportedly met his influential former aide Steve Bannon. - 'Highly classified' - In public, Trump and the White House took pains to keep things under wraps. The normally talkative Trump said nothing to reporters as he returned to the White House on Saturday night, just one minute after his scheduled 6 pm arrival. The timing was precise for a reason. The first B-2 bomber dropped its bombs just 40 minutes later, at 6:40 pm US time, or 2:10 am Sunday Iranian time. The last submarine-fired Tomahawk missiles struck at 7:05 pm. Trump announced the "very successful" strikes in a Truth Social post at 7:50 pm. The White House then released pictures of a pensive looking Trump in the Situation Room, wearing his red "Make America Great Again" baseball cap. "This was a highly classified mission with very few people in Washington knowing the timing or nature of this plan," US Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine said on Sunday. But the tough decisions are far from over for Trump, who was meeting his top team again on Monday in the Oval Office. How will he respond to Iran's retaliation on Monday? If the US strikes did not completely destroy Iran's nuclear sites as he claimed, will he launch more? Above all, will Trump go further than striking Iran's nuclear plants? "If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???" Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
US strikes on Iran open rift in Trump's support base
Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran has been cheered by mainstream Republicans but it has exposed deep fissures between the hawks and the isolationists in the "MAGA" movement that swept the self-styled peacemaker US president back to power. Trump ran as an "America First" Republican who would avoid the foreign entanglements of his predecessors, tapping into his movement's unease about prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more recent conflagrations in Gaza and Ukraine. Establishment Republicans -- and in particular the congressional party -- rallied behind their leader after Saturday's military action, welcoming what many see as an about-face and rejecting claims that the president had violated the Constitution. Beyond Washington's Beltway, some of the die-hard members of Trump's "Make America Great Again" coalition who follow him on the rally circuit also appear willing -- for now, at least -- to give him the benefit of the doubt. "I don't think we're going to end up in war. I think Trump is leader, and he's going to just obliterate them, and there won't be any war," 63-year-old Jane Sisk, a retired mother-of-six from Richmond, Virginia, told AFP. But the louder, more visible, more online faction of MAGA influencers and media personalities who oppose their government reaching beyond the US shoreline are desperate to sway Trump's supporters in the opposite direction. In a long post on X Monday, far-right lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene bemoaned having traveled the country campaigning for Trump, only to see him break his anti-interventionist covenant with his supporters. - 'Bait and switch' - "Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3," she thundered on the social media site. "It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" While the post was astonishing for its uncompromising language -- Greene appropriated a Democratic talking point to add that Trump was "not a king" -- it was far from the first sign of MAGA dissent. Thomas Massie -- a House conservative who has piqued Trump's irritation with anti-war posts -- told CBS that members of his faction within MAGA were "tired from all these wars." And as Trump gave his televised address confirming details of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, his former top strategist Steve Bannon told viewers of his online "War Room" show that the president has "some work to do" to explain his decision. Other figures among Trump's right-wing support base have started to come around after initially voicing shock. Far-right influencer Charlie Kirk -- a leading MAGA anti-war voice before the weekend -- warned his millions of YouTube viewers that US involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict would cause "a major schism in the MAGA online community." - 'Trust in Trump' - But he appeared to have shifted his stance over the weekend, praising Trump for "prudence and decisiveness." The U-turn is symptomatic of a broader trend, analysts argue, among the softer MAGA isolationists to fall into line and simply embrace the White House's "trust in Trump" mantra now that they have lost the argument. Conservative Hoover Institution fellow Lanhee Chen believes the president will hold his coalition together as long as they see Saturday's action as more akin to the 2020 US assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani than the start of a protracted war. "I think you saw some of that disagreement leading up to last night. I haven't seen a lot of disagreement since then," Chen told NBC on Sunday. Trust in Trump could be eroded, his allies warn, if Iran retaliates, dragging the United States into an escalating cycle of violence. But, for now, the president's coalition is on board with his warnings over Iran's nuclear threat. Polling conducted after the US strikes will take several days to filter through, but in the latest J.L. Partners survey just ahead of the mission, 67 percent of "MAGA Republicans" agreed that "Israel's war is America's war" while only 20 percent wanted the country to remain on the sidelines. "I don't think Trump's going to send soldiers over there," said Sisk, the Virginia supporter interviewed by AFP. "I don't think he's gonna get us involved in the war, just like he said."
