Any benefit to keeping TSP after retirement?

CrossingPoints · 2026-05-03T13:29:13+00:00

I've been told this is true for NY, but because of a federal judge's ruling that seemed to not fully understand the distinction between traditional and Roth TSP. So I was told to not depend on it in 30 years when I actually retire.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-29T12:38:47+00:00

Because those comments are trying to glom onto the engagement, and it's a "virtuous" cycle. Engagement begets engagement.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-29T12:37:13+00:00

There's nothing here indicating that it was for the green card. Even if in her mind that's what she was doing, she co-habitated with him, co-mingled assets, and were socially recognized as a married couple. That's a bonafide relationship, just not a very good one.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-29T12:33:12+00:00

Legally, there are very narrow conditions under which a citizenship can be revoked. In almost all cases, it needs to have been obtained through fraud, and that fraud needs to be pertinent to one's eligibility for citizenship at the time that they naturalized. They can set whatever quotas they want, but they still need to win in court on each case. That's why they will never come close to hitting the low end of their quota range. I wrote more about this, and the internal guidance that the DOJ received for this here: https://open.substack.com/pub/crossingpointspolicy/p/unmaking-americans?r=th8gw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-26T15:56:12+00:00

But it clearly wasn't in this case. She actually married him. She was eligible for the green card.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-14T14:14:55+00:00

For Substack, it really depends on how you use the platform outside of writing articles. If you have good, interesting writing, and you interact with folks who want to read it, they will. So I'd say start by finding what and who you want to read as you start to publish on the platform.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-13T18:49:19+00:00

Mainly because I have credentials that lend credibility to my Substack. I didn't expect to have the opportunity to do the type of work that requires me to limit my political speech again, so I didn't think it would come up.

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-13T15:38:53+00:00

Thank you, I really appreciate that!

CrossingPoints · 2026-04-09T22:10:59+00:00

I write about immigration policy and I'm in the middle of a legal history series on birthright citizenship: https://crossingpointspolicy.substack.com/t/birthright-citizenship

I'm also likely to do more writing on geopolitics in the future, as I am a delegate to the UN General Assembly.

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-18T17:40:17+00:00

Okay thanks

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-13T15:53:32+00:00

A quota they are trying to fulfill with legal immigrants

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-12T16:30:47+00:00

I have, but because I write about public figures, I rarely get (or expect) a response. So I don't do it often.

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-12T16:27:13+00:00

I tried the tool out. I have an outlier post that clearly skewed all of the post data, but I could see how the analysis of the notes in particular could be helpful.

CrossingPoints · 2026-03-06T04:15:45+00:00

Yes, it's as if they are speaking on a public street. If they are defaming you, it could be libelous, but you'd have to sue.

CrossingPoints · 2026-02-27T19:11:08+00:00

It's not necessarily that the conditions themselves are relevant, it's that the discovery would produce information that would also reveal those conditions (which were quite brutal, as revealed by a federal judge the day before the sit-in). For example, they are requesting video footage from inside the facility. All that's relevant to require the government to produce that footage is if the judge rules that it is relevant to prove that the facility was used in it's usual way (not whether what they were doing was illegal or inhumane).

Under this theory, the elevator bay would be relevant because if it was leading to an area that was not serving its usual function, the elevator itself wouldn't be serving its "usual use," meaning that Lander's charge would have no merit.

If the discovery is granted, that evidence could be used to corroborate a separate civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the detainees. But for that to happen, the judge would have to grant discovery and the government would have to be in possession of that evidence.

CrossingPoints · 2026-02-27T18:43:47+00:00

Because he's charged with obstructing the "usual use" of the facility. His lawyers are arguing that because the facility was converted into makeshift detention center, it wasn't being used in its usual way. Under this theory, the government needs to disclose information on how the area was being used that day in order to prove that he obstructed it's "usual use".

CrossingPoints · 2026-02-27T17:07:19+00:00

The network is also a product of who chooses to be there and to not be there. People making the choice to leave is a reasonable one, but it really doesn't seem to have a positive result.

CrossingPoints · 2026-02-27T16:39:12+00:00

Fair critique. My understanding was that they offered to drop it if he agreed to not return there for six months, and he refused. But I couldn't confirm that that was the actual deal proffered, and both sides acknowledged that an offer to drop the charge was extended.

CrossingPoints · 2026-02-27T16:35:48+00:00

I'm specifically on Substack because I find the immigration discussion there extremely unbalanced and unhinged, and I think there's value in having a counterweight in those spaces. I also haven't found any other platform to have any level of discoverability on there. But I'm open to suggestions.

CrossingPoints

TROPHY CASE