Not to try too hard to explain the joke but I think the core concept being highlighted here is one of a perceived discrepancy between “diversity inclusive descriptors” and terms that imply “otherness.” For example, a white person might feel uncomfortable using the term “black” but would be comfortable with terms like “person of color” and “African-American.” Linguistically, this might be because “person of color” implies that the individual is first and foremost a person and that their color, in an ethnic sense, is an additive quality to their “personness.” I’m a person. You’re a person. We’re all…persons. That sort of thing. Similarly, a person who is African-American is, much like the (I’m going to assume American) white speaker, also American. It’s the idea of an immediately identifiable, if unspoken, shared quality.
I’m going to go ahead and post my hot take: I hate that these people are facing eviction and that they’re faced with crippling medical debt caused by chronic illness and frequent hospitalization. I don’t like these people. I don’t agree with their beliefs. I think Kyle Rittenhouse did something unforgivably terrible and that his family like enabled him and his actions. But I also don’t want them to be homeless or to have to deal with medical debt, because those are things that I believe our society should guarantee, as inalienable rights, that no one, regardless of how odious they or their family might be, should have to endure. And I don’t care that they (probably) believe differently.