Your suggestion that you should be eligible for political asylum is not grounded in reality. I think you essentially conceded that when you told me to “[a]ssume for a second that you are correct insofar as my conclusion (asylum) is incorrect.” As my entire point was that your asylum claims were ridiculous, it seems to me that it’s very much you who are moving the goalposts by asking me to now critique your “supporting statements.”
Your list contains a lot of things that you object to, and you claim that they show how the country has been going in the wrong direction over the past 10 years. Apparently you think that these objectionable policies create the basis for asylum, and I can only infer that you think that the recent nature of these policies means that asylum would be appropriate now when it wouldn’t have been 20 years ago. But it’s difficult to know what your point is because your argument isn’t very coherent. Does the time matter? If not, why do you emphasize that these are recent developments? If it does, then my time-based criticism holds. Even if time doesn’t matter, how do these policies create a cognizable basis for asylum? Who is being persecuted? Why is the political process inadequate? Do you have a coherent argument?
Notwisthstanding the above, I haven’t seen compelling evidence that there is widespread collusion between prisons and judges, that police are more militant than they have been historically, that the financial community is behaving more irresponsibly than they have historically, that civil liberties have been rapidly eroded, that everyone’s electronic communications (as opposed to metadata) are being recorded, that the current stance on abortion is radically different than how it has been treated for most of US history, or that campaign finance contributions are being allowed in ways that haven’t been allowed for most of US history.
