This reminds me of the personal liberty laws Northern Whigs passed after the Compromise of 1850 to assert that local constabularies would not assist slavecatchers in dragging alleged slaves South. I can just imagine people like Wulfric disagreeing with the lack of local assistance with enforcing Federal law.
Interesting attempt at a connection, but cracking down on illegal immigration and protecting slavery are two completely different actions.
In both cases, a State government was refusing to aid the Federal government in carrying out a policy it considered to be wrong. If you think States should never do that, then I suppose you also opposed States not expanding Medicaid eligibility or setting up exchanges when the ACA was enacted.
Well, I think it's possible that the ACA might have worked out better (it's a complete failure in a number of states) if all states had state exchanges and expanded medicaid, but that's another discussion.
I guess in an extreme case like slavery you could justify state government "civil disobedience". But this isn't an extreme case. It's simply actually caring about the border. Trump has stated that he will, at least at first, priortize those who have committed crimes aside from their immigration over other illegal immigrants. It's a perfectly reasonable and humane action to deport those folks and state governments should not withhold any information they happen to learn on this matter.
