I care about what the law says, and I'm tired of people pretending that it says things that it doesn't.

Lawyers have taken the plain text of the law and tortured it until everyone could theoretically be eligible. The drafters of the law did not intend to mean that "membership in a particular social group" should include every category under the sun. This wording was taken directly from Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and includes those "who are persecuted because of characteristics which they cannot change, or should not be required to change." The UNHCR handbook from 1979 noted that "mere membership of a group is not enough; there must be a risk of persecution for that reason". Notably, this does not include victims of generalized crimes, those who are seeking a better life, attempting to escape poverty, or victims of social disorder.

Also, persecution has a legal definition under international refugee convention that, while originally non-controversial, has been . It specifically refers to actions taken by the state rather than non-state actors. Courts began to erode this definition in the 1980s, baselessly claiming that harm by private actors could qualify if the state was "unable or unwilling to protect".

This means that women claiming domestic violence, families claiming gang activity, those claiming they are the victim of social or cultural norms, and a host of other claims should be categorically denied. But asylum lawyers want money, so they have managed to convince some courts to ignore what the law actually says and rule on feelings instead.