People pick sides in conflicts that they aren't participating in almost like they're watching sports, they root for underdogs or their home team - it's usually a hot take based on incorrect information. if they pick the "wrong side" and someone in power disagrees with them - they can suggest they support the worst thing that group ever said to justify censoring them by deportation. See the big gap in reasoning there? It's disingenuous since by that logic supporting any side in any war is advocating violence and terrorism, but only the "wrong side" will be scrutinized.