This seems like another one of those situations where the state is expected to adopt federal law/regulations as part of being a part of the "united" states. However there must be a distinction here with states having the authority to at least temporarily restrict enforcement to allow resolutions of conflict. If the situation were hypothetically changed to be about the 2nd amendment.. say a democrat president issued a directive for the ATF to confiscate all firearms and melt them down, we would be in favor of any state executive who would get in the way of such an act. The difference is that one action is out of line with the constitution (the supreme law of the land). Obviously hindering the enforcement of illegal immigration threatens the sovereignty of the nation, and so the people should be against Bass's order.