From the article: "In a note attached to the files, the Department of Peace wrote, "They have our information, so it's only fair that we have theirs.""

The law does not always reflect ethics. It is a snapshot, sometimes old, of the ethics (or lack thereof) of a time and place. Crimes are laudible when the letter of the law misaligns with the ethics of the time, and then eventually laws catch up. If everyone always followed the law, nothing would ever improve.

Some seem to sincerely believe that renewed immigration law enforcement is morally evil.

I'm not sure why since it was enforced this way for decades before except for a few years recently. Now, I think that one can argue that ICE is overly aggressive, that it casts too wide a net, that too many mistakes are made, that it should focus on specific violations instead, etc. But these are arguments that can be made for any law enforcement agency, and have been for over 100 years in the USA. Sometimes, IMO, they were even justified.

That said, however, it also seems that many have latched onto ICE enforcement actions as a bell-weather pre-cursor to additional actions that will lead to a dystopian outcome. Or is in the process of doing so as we speak.

Thus, if one believes this to be true, then one can see why actions taken to fight/oppose/slow down the process can be viewed in a morally good light and something to be celebrated.

Legality !== morality

Fighting in the US war of independence was a crime too, but those people are considered patriot heros.

> Since when are crimes laudable?

I have faith that you understand the nuance of crimes sometimes being okay. For another example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks