At that point you have expanded the meaning of "persecution" to nonsense.
Sure, we could accept Americans as "politically persecuted", because highways in America have speed limits. But we choose not to.
At some point you need to accept that not every difference in laws is persecution. That not every difference in law means that the other one is doing something wrong.
Alas, the US Supreme Court feels similarly when its conservative wing always dismisses all analogies and examples abroad as obviously uninteresting. I think "our SCOTUS" gets this balance right, or at least more right, when it differentiates between "would not constitutional in Germany, but is a valid viewpoint" and "would not be constitutional, and is so far beyond the pale that there cannot be an accomodation".
An extradition case starring an American from some years ago is a prime example for this differentiation, in my opinion (anyone interested in reading a summary?).