to meet the criteria for admission.”). 7 . Cf. Whiting, 131 S.Ct. at 1986 ("Congress's objective in authorizing the development of E-Verify was to ensure reliability in employment authorization verification, combat counterfeiting of identity documents, and protect employee privacy. Arizona’s requirement that employers operating within its borders use E-Verify in no way obstructs achieving those aims.”). 8 . See Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2505 (A "[cjonflict in technique can be fully as disruptive to the system Congress enacted as a conflict in overt policy.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 9 . Other courts also have found state anti-harboring provisions to be preempted by federal law. See Ga. Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Georgia, 691 F.3d 1250, 1267 (11th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), reh’g en banc denied, No. 11-13044 (11th Cir.
holding that  1324 preempted georgia law criminalizing harboring of aliens holding that  1324 preempted south carolina law creating state crimes for harboring both relating to harborers and aliens themselves holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that  1324 preempted a local ordinance prohibiting renting housing to illegal aliens holding that subsequent congressional statute regulating registration of aliens retroactively preempted state law