on remand in the analysis of actual or potential conflicts between [the California provision] and federal law.”). 5 . We have held that harboring requires making a non-citizen’s illegal presence in the United States “substantially easier or less dif ficult." United States v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir.2007); see, e.g., United States v. Hinojos-Mendez, 270 Fed.Appx. 368, 369 (5th Cir.2008) (acting as a lookout at an apartment complex); Shum, 496 F.3d at 390 (providing false identifications and failing to file social security paperwork for employees); United States v. Ramirez, 250 Fed.Appx. 80, 83 (5th Cir.2007) (barring officers from bedroom where illegal non-citizens were hiding, providing non-citizens with necessities including food and shelter, and attempting 3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted and vacated on other
holding that  1324 preempted a local ordinance prohibiting renting housing to illegal aliens holding that a local ordinance prohibiting rental housing for illegal aliens was not field preempted and did not conflict with the federal removal process and where the ordinance specified it did not prohibit conduct expressly permitted by federal law did not conflict with federal antiharboring law holding that  1324 preempted south carolina law creating state crimes for harboring both relating to harborers and aliens themselves holding that  1324 preempted georgia law criminalizing harboring of aliens holding that local ordinance prohibiting the sale of beer or wine to persons less than 21 years of age was not preempted by state statute prohibiting the furnishing of any alcoholic beverages to persons under 21