"No" alone has proven a pretty bad strategy for opposing anything political. It doesn't give people much to talk about, but worse it makes the middle ground somewhere between zero and infinite steps in a bad direction.
The proper response to wanting to import Afghanis is something along the lines of "We might accept 5 million Afghans after we've deported 30 million illegals."
"We'll give lovers of basketball reparations on the condition that they repatriate to Africa."
"We'll allow you to offer a CRT course to our kids after "Democracy: The God That Failed" and Henry Ford's seminal works are made mandatory reading."
This is what they hated Trump for. Trump was able to, not always, but often enough, reframe the discussion outside of what the media wanted it to be. They know the ability to do this is the ability to control a "democracy", and Trump did it well enough that they had to defraud an election. He was made voiceless for no other reason than this. Trump and his vision for the future weren't even right wing, he just refused to stay within their frame.
So yeah, containment news networks won't rally behind it, but no Afghanis or any other refugees until we deport seven fold illegals and finish the wall. From there we can find a middle ground.
Side remarks: The purpose of social media purges and suppression is to disrupt and retard budding conglomerations that may have the potential to affect normative discourse. Secondly, this is why fox news is non stop coverage of what CNN is talking about but with a grimace. It doesn't matter what their stance is, they're doing the footwork of showing a different audience the same frame. Not only that, but their comedy shows like Guttfield often present hard line stances, stances which if stated differently could be serious, as jokes of endearment.