With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.

A: holding that  1324 preempted georgia law criminalizing harboring of aliens
B: holding that  1324 preempted south carolina law creating state crimes for harboring both relating to harborers and aliens themselves
C: holding that  1324 preempted a local ordinance prohibiting renting housing to illegal aliens
D: holding the state law claims were not preempted
A.