You are making less and less sense.

1. The UN can't grant asylum because the UN isn't a nation and has no territory in which an asylee could live.

2. You are absolutely wrong that you can apply for asylum at an embassy--many have tried, none have succeeded. By law you can only apply for it in the United States (after having been admitted on some other status or entering illegally) or at a port of entry. If you apply for it at a port of entry, you will NOT be granted admission unless and until asylum is granted by an immigration judge.

If a woman showed up at a U.S. embassy asking for asylum, they will say "Sorry, can't help you." How do you think any country could possibly maintain diplomatic relations with another if they whisked the the other's citizens out the back door of its embassy?

Finally, I find your notion of "rescuing" refugees through marriage and sponsorship, if I understand you properly, odd, a little bit creepy, definitely patronizing, and not at all feminist in nature. But if that floats your boat and the marriage is bona fide, have at it.

Uumm, Yes they can, and they do. American victims of domestic violence flee to Canada, France, the U.K. or other countries all of the time.

You knew that I clearly meant "seek asylum in" when I said "flee to."

Fortunately the American justice system does address domestic violence, so an American abused girl or woman could go to the authorities in America for protection from an abusive father, boyfriend, sexual harasser, or husband. But for some American women the authorities don't offer enough protection, so they feel the need to flee to Canada, France, the U.K. or other countries. So far - to the best of my knowledge - no American woman has applied for asylum to another country, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.

I am sure that you are wrong that no American woman has applied for asylum in another country. Since thousands of Americans are removed/deported/excluded from other countries on an annual basis, it is to be expected that some fraction of them will try to use asylum as a grounds to normalize their status or delay their removal.

But no friendly Western nation is going to grant asylum to an American on the grounds of domestic violence, given the international comity of the American justice system. The only possibly successful grounds for asylum I can think of for Americans in other allied Western nations are 1. Those facing the death penalty in America, and 2. Vietnam draftees back in the day. There may be a few others, but none that would apply here.

"Musalo points out that it's not easy for DV victims to escape to a foreign nation for asylum. Fair enough, but then it should be even easier for them to relocate within their own nation."

No, I wouldn't make that assumption, particularly if the asylum seeker in question came from a country where Sharia law was enforced (such as Afghanistan).

If a DV victim stays in her own country, and her abusers are not and will not be charged, then there is no place in her country where her abusers would be unable to pursue her, so therefore she must seek asylum in another country to escape her abusers.

You are ignoring the meaning of both what I said and the Musalo reference. All I was referring to by "easier to relocate" was the practicality of physically moving from one point to another, not the treatment on arrival. Musalo was referring to how hard it is for abused women to travel to (or sneak into) the United States in order to apply for asylum domestically.

Are contending that it would be easier for an impoverished, abused Afghan woman to fly into JFK and sneak through customs without a visa than to take a jitney from Kandahar to Kabul?

My point was that asylum for DV victims should not only consider local threats and politics. If an asylee could find asylum simply by leaving her home town, then it's clear that she does not need to go abroad for asylum; that's a threshold question that would be skipped if America adopted an untenable blanket "we accept all victims of ongoing DV" policy. An abused woman from Afghanistan may well have all kinds of arguments for asylum over and above the simple fact of abuse, since until recently women had few rights at all anywhere in the country, either in fact or at law. And I fully agree that Mexico does have a terrible track record. That's why there should be a factual inquiry, rather than the blanket denials that would occur under the Bush policy.