WASHINGTON, D.C. — Questions continue to swirl about the end of Title 42, the controversial public health measure President Joe Biden wants to end on Monday.

A ruling from a federal judge in the coming days could, however, keep it in place.

WHAT IS AT STAKE?

Title 42 is the pandemic public health policy that immediately expelled over a million asylum-seeking migrants during the pandemic.

Former President Donald Trump initially put the policy in place and it has continued into the Biden presidency.

Data has shown the migrants turned away over the last several years were primarily from Mexico, although they also came from other places in Central America, like Guatemala and Honduras.

Individuals from Caribbean nations like Haiti were also reportedly turned away as were some from European countries like Belarus.

Human rights groups believe the U.S. should be accommodating to those seeking persecution from other countries.

U.S. law requires the United States to accept refugees who have "well-founded" fears of persecution.

Opponents are arguing this is going to create a mass migration mess at the border and that the country is not prepared to handle the influx of migrants.

WAITING ON COURT RULING

The country is waiting on District Court Judge Robert Summerhays to rule on whether the Biden administration can end the policy.

It's possible Summerhays rules in favor of Republican attorneys general who brought the lawsuit. Summerhays has previously ruled in favor of conservatives on consequential issues.

No matter what the Trump appointee decides, an appeal is likely.

ARE WE READY?

If the judge allows Biden to end Title 42, the logical question is whether the U.S. is prepared for what could happen at the border.

Republicans and some Democrats believe there needs to be a better plan.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as Border Patrol, has told reporters they are prepared.

"The Secretary and I have had the opportunity to meet with our front line officers, agents and our workforce to ensure that we are prepared for May 23^rd and beyond," U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said Tuesday during a border event with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

DHS has worked to mobilize staff and volunteers to the border in anticipation of a surge of asylum-seeking migrants when Title 42 ends.

Temporary facilities have been promised to be built as well.

Currently, around 8,000 people a day show up at America's borders. The Department of Homeland Security has said that it is preparing for the possibility of 18,000 each day once the measure is lifted.

Mexican immigration authorities have dissolved a caravan of almost 7,000 people that had departed the southern city of Tapachula and was headed to Mexico City, according to a statement released on Saturday by the Mexican National Institute of Migration (INM).

The migrants were given a migratory document that accredits their regular stay in Mexico, according to the INM.

Mexico's immigration authority held talks with spokespeople for the caravan and representatives from Central America, Venezuela, Haiti, and other countries.

The INM said, "with the agreements reached thanks to our talks, migrants are prevented from being victims of criminals who are dedicated to human trafficking or traffickers who expose the migrants to unsafe conditions."

Many of the migrants are from Venezuela, and many of them are families with children. There are at least three different groups divided among the cities of Huixtla, Mapastepec, and Escuintla in the Mexican state of Chiapas. A large number of them are still waiting to process migration documents to continue their journey to the U.S.

The Human Rights Watch released a report on June 6, stating that migrants and asylum-seekers who enter Mexico through its southern border face abuses and struggle to obtain protection or legal status.

Most migrants and asylum-seekers said they do not attempt to request protection at an official border crossing, fearing agents from the INM would deport them, according to the HRW report.

Some migrants and asylum-seekers told the HRW that "they sought protection at the border and were turned away by INM agents or security guards. Many said INM agents dissuaded them from seeking refugee status in Mexico and pressured them to accept voluntary returns to their countries."

To his family, Roberto Villegas was the heart of the household.

“He’s the best father I could have ever asked for,” said his daughter Michelle, who will be entering high school after the summer.

In 2019, Roberto was deported.

“I get a call and he's like, 'I need you to sit down. I need you to just breathe.' He said, "Don't get scared, I just got pulled over by ICE,'” said his wife Raquel.

Raquel says Roberto was once in the U.S. legally, but more than 20 years ago, when he was coming back in the states from Mexico, he said he was a US citizen, when he was not. The penalty for lying about citizenship status is a permanent ban from living in the country. There's no appeals process, no way to fight it. His wife, kids and brothers in the U.S. were stunned.

“It's life-changing and not in a good way, a really important person just gets taken away from you and it's really hard to get accustomed to it,” said Roberto's son Jared, who is 20 years old.

Jared has taken a job to help the family pay their bills.

As the Villegas family learned, immigration laws can be very black and white. According to FWD.us, an immigration advocacy group, 1.7 million Americans have an undocumented spouse.

“The only way to get through this is to change the law,” said Kali Pliegro, the president of an effort to do exactly that. She wants there to be a pathway to citizenship for undocumented spouses with families in the U.S. It's part of the American Families United Bill.

The bill has dozens of Democratic co-sponsors and three Republicans in the house. That imbalance right now is something they’re working to fix. With concerns over border security and letting the wrong people back into the country, the bill’s advocates know this is an obstacle to get more Republicans on board.

“ There's nothing like a, a blanket approval involved. It's a case-by-case basis of judgment, whether that case merits residency,” said Kali.

“That’s why I like this bill, because without a doubt, you can look into my brother and you can see, 'Oh, this guy never had a fail to yield ticket, he paid all his taxes,'” said Roberto’s brother Joel.

This bill would be the only way Roberto could live in the U.S. again.

“When I talk to my senators or representatives, especially here in Texas, their first response is we want to secure the borders. Yes, I want you to secure the borders, but we also need to think about those families who are separated, who are US citizen families,” said Raquel.

As conversations continue about the best way to secure our borders, families stuck in the middle of policy ask for empathy and hope that a middle ground can be achieved.

“I really want people to understand that he isn't a criminal. He's my dad. He is a son. He is a husband. He is a father. And he deserves to be over here,” said Michelle.

The migrants who were flown from Florida to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts have been taken to a military base.

Approximately 50 migrants were offered shelter and support services at Joint Base Cape Cod, according to CNN.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he sent the migrants to Massachusetts so other communities can share the "burden" of the crisis at the Southern border.

NBC News reports that the number of migrant crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border is approaching 8,000 per day.

“There is also going to be buses and there will likely be more flights, but I’ll tell you this, the legislature gave me $12 million and we’re gonna spend every penny of that to make sure that we’re protecting the people of the State of Florida," DeSantis said.

The U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts said she will speak with the Justice Department about DeSantis' treatment of the migrants. Some of the migrants were reportedly told they were going to Boston.

President Joe Biden said the move by DeSantis and other Republican governors is "un-American."

"Instead of working with us on solutions, Republicans are playing politics with human beings, using them as props," Biden said. "What they're doing is simply wrong... it's reckless."

Sheriff Eddie Guerra of the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office said his agency rescued 84 undocumented migrants from a tractor-trailer on Thursday.

"A concerned citizen called to report a tractor trailer arrive at a residence ... and seeing people unloading from the trailer," he said.

Guerra told CNN that the migrants were from Central America, and none reported injuries.

The trailer was spotted about eight miles from the United States/Mexico border.

It’s unclear if the undocumented immigrants will make an asylum claim.

They were rescued amid a rise in apprehension at the border.

Through August, there have been more than 2 million apprehensions at the border in the fiscal year 2022 (which ended in September). Even with a month remaining in the fiscal year, the CBP has already set a record for the number of apprehensions at the border.

Migrants who claim asylum are generally released after being processed by CBP while they await a court hearing. U.S. statistics show that nearly two-thirds of asylum claims are rejected, causing those seeking asylum to be deported.

File video above: U.S. preps for rising migration when Title 42 ends

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Title 42 — a controversial rule that's allowed U.S. authorities to expel more than 1 million migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.

Tuesday's court order leaves the Biden administration without one of the key tools it had deployed to address the thousands of migrants arriving at the border on a daily basis and could restore access to asylum for arriving migrants.

While the rule was drafted by the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration has relied heavily on it to manage the increase of migrants at the border.

District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., found the Title 42 order to be "arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act."

Prior to Title 42, all migrants arrested at the border were processed under immigration law. Thousands of migrants sent back to Mexico have been waiting along the border in shelters. Officials have previously raised concerns about what the end of Title 42 may portend, given limited resources and a high number of people trying to enter the country.

CNN has reached out to the White House, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security for comment.

Sullivan faulted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the public health order, for "its decision to ignore the harm that could be caused" by issuing the policy. He said the CDC also failed to consider alternative approaches, such as letting migrants self-quarantine in homes of US-based friends, family, or shelters. The agency, he said, should have reexamined its approach when vaccines and tests became widely available.

"With regard to whether defendants could have 'ramped up vaccinations, outdoor processing, and all other available public health measures,'... the court finds the CDC failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for why such measures were not feasible," Sullivan wrote.

The judge also concluded that the policy did not rationally serve its purpose, given that COVID-19 was already widespread throughout the United States when the policy was rolled out.

"Title 42 was never about public health, and this ruling finally ends the charade of using Title 42 to bar desperate asylum seekers from even getting a hearing," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case, said in a statement.

The injunction request came from the ACLU, along with other immigrant advocacy groups, and involves all demographics, including single adults and families. Unaccompanied children were already exempt from the order.

The public health authority was invoked at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and has been criticized by immigrant advocates, attorneys and health experts who argue it has no health basis and puts migrants in harm's way.

Sullivan had previously blocked the Biden administration from expelling migrant families with children apprehended at the US-Mexico border.

Earlier this year, the CDC announced plans to terminate the order. The CDC said at the time it's no longer necessary given current public health conditions and the increased availability of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.

But in May, a federal judge in Louisiana blocked the Biden administration from ending Title 42.

Since that court order, the administration has continued to rely on Title 42 and most recently, expanding it to include Venezuelan migrants who have arrived at the US southern border in large numbers.

One day after telling reporters he intends to visit the U.S. and Mexico border, President Joe Biden announced several initiatives to improve border security.

The announcement comes amid uncertainty over the future of Title 42, the Trump-era order that allowed those seeking asylum to stay in Mexico while they await a hearing. The rule was put in place during the pandemic to stop the spread of COVID-19, but the Biden administration has argued that the policy should end as pandemic-era restrictions relax.

Republicans, however, have fought to keep the policy in place despite largely wanting other pandemic restrictions to disappear.

One major part of the announcement is that the administration will expand the parole process used for Venezuelan nationals to those from Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba. The administration said it will immediately turn away those entering from those nations, but will setup a process for them to gain sponsored entry if they can pass background checks.

Opponents of Title 42 say that U.S. and international law binds the country to allow migrants to remain in the U.S. while awaiting to be processed due to fears of persecution.

Part of Biden’s order stipulates increasing the use of expedited removals. He is ordering that those who enter the U.S. without permission, do not have a legal basis to remain in the U.S., and cannot be expelled under Title 42 will face an expedited return to their country of origin and a five-year ban on reentering.

He is also seeking ways to encourage migrants to use orderly and legal pathways to entry to ease the strain on the immigration system.

The administration also says it plans on expanding legal pathways for “safe, orderly and humane migration.”

The White House said that if Title 42 ends, those seeking to enter the U.S. from Mexico through a port of entry will have access to a mobile application to schedule a time to present themselves for inspection and make an asylum claim. The process, the administration said, would allow for a safer, more orderly process

WASHINGTON — A special counsel investigation looking into the current president. A special counsel investigation looking into a former president. Congressional inquires into Afghanistan and the southern border.

Less than three weeks into the new year, all these investigations are starting to stack up in Washington.

So which ones should you be paying attention to? And which investigations could have the support of both parties?

INVESTIGATIONS GALORE

It's becoming increasingly hard to keep track of all the investigations unfolding in Congress.

When Republicans took over the House, some inquiries, like the committee that looked into the January 6th attacks, went away. However, new committees, like the "Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government," have formed in their place.

Indeed, investigations are only just beginning in Washington.

The probes range from inquiries into President Joe Biden and his family's business dealings to Biden's use of classified documents in the years after he left the White House as vice president.

There are inquiries into the spike in migrants at the southern border, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and political bias at the Department of Justice.

Another folder on social media companies and their influence has been created too.

WHY THEY MATTER

These investigations will be some of the most newsworthy events that come out of Washington these next few years.

With Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans over the House, issuing a subpoena and forming a select committee will be easier than passing major pieces of legislation.

So which ones should you pay attention to?

While it may be easy to dismiss many of the probes as too political, new information can emerge from them, since Congress has the power to subpoena, and lying can result in jail time. One investigation you may want to watch is the one into social media companies.

Democrats and Republicans have been trying to better understand, for years, what makes it onto someone's news feed.

Republicans have already written to former executives at Twitter looking into whether some stories involving Biden's son, Hunter, were censored. Democrats, meanwhile, are interested in why hate speech can so easily spread online.

One social media site in the U.S., TikTok, is facing even more scrutiny, with Democrats and Republicans worried it is too closely connected to the Chinese Communist Party.

Several states have already banned state employees from using TikTok on official devices and Congress is mulling over the idea of even more restrictions.

Of course, all these inquiries are merely investigations led by Congress.

The attorney general is leading other, less public, inquiries as well. Chief among them is the special counsel investigations into Biden, as well as former President Donald Trump.

Those cases could be concluded by the end of this year.

HARLINGEN, Texas —

U.S. authorities on Thursday expanded slots to seek asylum at land crossings with Mexico through a mobile app for the second time in less than a month, seeking to dispel doubts it isn't a viable option.

There are now 1,250 appointments daily at eight land crossings, up from 1,000 previously and 740 in early May.

The increase “reflects our commitment to continue to expand lawful options for migrants,” said Blas Nuñez-Neto, the Homeland Security Department's assistant secretary for border and immigration policy. "We’ll continue to expand appointments at the border as our operations allow in terms of capacity.”

Nuñez-Neto called CBP One a “safe and orderly option” during a visit to Harlingen, Texas. He announced the expansion a week after Texas sued to end what the state government considers an illegal method of boosting immigration.

Demand has far outstripped supply from the Jan. 12 start, prompting many to consider crossing the border illegally or giving up. Enrique Lucero, migrant affairs director for the city of Tijuana, said the latest increase would have little impact considering how many are waiting.

“It’s not a big deal,” he said. “It’s still very low and not enough for the pent-up demand.”

After pandemic-related asylum restrictions ended May 11, the Biden administration continued its embrace of a carrot-and-stick approach to the border, introducing a general ban on asylum for people who travel through other countries, like Mexico, and enter the U.S. illegally.

Video below: Migrants ride so-called 'Train of Death' hoping to make it to US

U.S. authorities are trying to funnel people to “legal pathways” like CBP One and parole for up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who apply online with a financial sponsor and arrive by air.

CBP One is for people of any nationality who apply in central and northern and northern Mexico and enter by land.

The expansion on Thursday was met with cautious optimism and mild indifference among some of the 150 people, mostly families with young children, camped on a sidewalk at a border crossing where Tijuana leads to San Diego, hoping U.S. officials admit them without a CBP One appointment.

They said it appeared authorities were allowing about one family every several hours, enough to create a growing bottleneck over the last week as word spread it was an alternative.

Carlos Vasquez, 25, reached southern Mexico from Honduras in January with his pregnant wife and their 4-year-old daughter and started trying daily on the app once he was in central Mexico. He became frustrated and, on Monday, began sleeping at the border camp, hoping U.S. officials would take mercy on his family.

Vasquez said the increase to 1,250 a day was good news but not enough for a major impact.

“We are many and there are few chosen,” he said.

Sergio Hernandez, 35, scored an appointment on May 24 after more than five months of daily effort. The appointments are scheduled up to two weeks out.

Hernandez, a Guatemalan who plans to seek asylum while living with a childhood friend in Kansas City, Missouri, said he had received countless “system error” messages before confirming a slot. He was once given a date on his phone screen but email confirmation never arrived.

“They keep improving it little by little,” he said.

Hernandez, who was traveling alone, said perceptions persist that larger families are at a disadvantage, which U.S. officials deny.

Beatriz Melchor, 47, said she would wait to see if the latest increase has an impact. She has been trying the app for about six weeks with her husband and son and said changes announced in early May have produced no noticeable benefit.

The changes included giving higher priority to asylum-seekers who have been trying the app longest and making appointments available throughout the day instead of all at once, which created mad rushes.

“We have more than a month trying and there are people here nine days, four days, and they get their appointments,” she said.

Melchor said returning to her hometown in the Mexican state of Guerrero wasn’t an option. Criminals blocked exits and entrances and she had to escape. If the mobile app doesn’t work, she is prepared to wait, though she said Tijuana is unsafe.

___

Spagat reported from Tijuana, Mexico.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is giving the Biden administration a quick hearing on its effort to scrap a Trump-era border policy that makes asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court.

The justices agreed Friday to hear the administration’s appeal of lower court rulings that forced it to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy that then-President Donald Trump introduced in 2019.

Arguments will take place in April, with a decision expected by late June.

President Joe Biden suspended the program on his first day in office. After Republican-led states sued, a federal judge ordered the policy put back in place, and a three-judge appeals court panel agreed.

Immigration advocates claim it's illegal to deny a person the right to seek asylum.

NBC News reports that more than 70,000 asylum seekers were returned to Mexico under the policy.

The photos look like a scene out of science fiction: Robot dogs patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border, climbing over harsh terrain to search for threats and contraband.

But these images are real.

The Department of Homeland Security recently released them as it revealed details about how it's testing the technology.

Officials praised the robots' potential as a "force multiplier" that could boost Border Patrol agents' safety by reducing their exposure to life-threatening hazards. An article touting the tests on the DHS Science and Technology Directorate's website notes that someday the dogs, officially known as Automated Ground Surveillance Vehicles, could become "a CBP agent or officer's best friend."

"Don't be surprised," it says, "if in the future we see robot 'Fido' out in the field, walking side-by-side with CBP personnel."

But the details about the testing did seem to catch some people by surprise, sparking a flurry of reactions on social media comparing the images to dystopian scenes from sci-fi shows like "Black Mirror."

"This really felt like a slap in the face," says Vicki Gaubeca, director of the Southern Border Communities Coalition, an umbrella group that slams the initiative as an "alarming and outrageous" waste of taxpayer money that would be better spent developing systems to hold Border Patrol agents accountable.

Gaubeca describes herself as a lover of technology and dogs (she has five). But she says she sees nothing cute in the government's recent descriptions of robot dogs lending a "helping paw." For years her organization has warned that militarization along the border puts communities and migrants at risk. And this, she says, is just the latest troubling example.

"There are other technologies that they're already using that we feel like they should cut back on, and yet they're adding on another type of surveillance technology that's frightening, to be honest," Gaubeca says. "This certainly seems like it's something that's built for something very aggressive, like the theaters of war, rather than in a community."

Ghost Robotics, the Philadelphia-based company that makes the robots DHS teams have been testing, says there's nothing to be afraid of.

"We're focused on doing the right thing. We want to do the right thing for the national security and for the country," CEO Jiren Parikh says.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesman says the project remains in the research and development phase, with no timetable for the dogs' deployment.

In the meantime, there are plenty of serious issues this technology is bringing to the surface.

There's a difference between science fiction and reality

Sometimes cute and sometimes creepy, robot dogs have been captivating Americans' imaginations for decades, long before videos of Boston Dynamics' four-legged robots dancing to Motown and BTS started going viral.

They've been symbols of futuristic innovation -- and ominous harbingers of what could happen if technology falls into the wrong hands.

In 1940, Westinghouse displayed a 60-pound aluminum-skinned dog at the World's Fair named Sparko that could walk, bark and sit. In the 1960s, the Jetsons' futuristic cartoon family briefly adopted a nuclear-powered electronic dog, Lectronimo, before deciding to donate him to the police department.

Menacing mechanical hounds hunted down fugitives in Ray Bradbury's dystopian 1953 novel "Fahrenheit 451." In 2017, an episode of "Black Mirror" featured terrifying robot guard dogs who chase and kill people.

But Parikh, Ghost Robotics' CEO, says there's a big gap between the way robot dogs are portrayed in science fiction -- and sometimes skewered on social media -- and the reality of the technology.

"It's a battery-operated computer that moves around on four legs that literally stops operating in four hours. There's no way they're going to be taking over anything," he says.

And, he notes, "it's a robot that's remotely controlled by a human in the middle."

But still, Parikh says his company's robots do provide a number of advantages in border zones. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is patrolling a huge geographic area, he notes, often under harsh conditions.

"This is a good way of technology adding value," he says, "filling in the holes."

During testing of the 100-pound robots, different types of cameras and sensors were mounted on them, transmitting real-time data to humans operating them via laptop or hand-held remote, DHS said.

Teams first tested them on asphalt, grass and hills in Lorton, Virginia, then tested them in more realistic scenarios in El Paso, Texas, where they walked up hills, down ravines and over rocks. The El Paso testing simulated sentry duty and inspections. And exercises also included maneuvers in tight spaces, high heat and low-oxygen conditions, "situations that are especially dangerous for CBP agents and officers," DHS said.

DHS Science & Technology program manager Brenda Long describes the dogs as a "great fit," given CBP's broad mission and the many risks its personnel face.

"The southern border can be an inhospitable place for man and beast, and that is exactly why a machine may excel there," she said in the department's press release.

Advocates at the border say they already felt under siege

Community advocates at the border have long accused the U.S. government of militarizing the region and using excessive surveillance. And the announcement of the robot dog testing doesn't help matters, Gaubeca says

"Border communities already feel over-surveilled, over-militarized, and yet they trot out this new technology and boast about it at a time when families are worried about how to get food on their tables and inflation," she says. "And it completely disregards the border communities as a community. It's like they fail to acknowledge that we're human beings on both sides."

For Gaubeca, it boils down to how resources are allocated.

"It's a use of technology that creates more problems and doesn't solve what we see as being the issue, which is how do we make this agency accountable, and how do we create a more humanitarian and efficient system at the border?" she says. "They should spend the money on something that is more humanitarian and effective, rather than intimidating."

The Biden administration has said it wants to create a more efficient, humane, orderly system at the border, but "this completely contradicts that sentiment," she says.

Ghost Robotics has partnered with the U.S. Defense Department in the past. And Parikh noted he'd just gotten off the phone with Ukraine's defense ministry before speaking with CNN this week. But he said the robot dogs on the U.S. border aren't part of a military effort -- and any suggestion that they are is silly.

"It's just another sensor carrier. It's really at a distance.... It's really for sensing around the environment. It's not really interacting with people. That's not what it's made for. There's no weapons on it," he says. "It's not being militarized for the border. It's not stopping people, saying 'don't go here.' It can't do that. It's a small robot."

The technology, he says, is designed to keep people safe. But could it ever be used against migrants at the border?

"That's not even come up ever," Parikh says. "It's not even a remote use case that's ever discussed or talked about."

People can't even agree about "a basic physical wall that's made of concrete and metal," he says.

"Do we really think we're going to start weaponizing robots? It's silly to do that. I don't think that's in the DNA of America either," Parikh says. "We live in a country that has so many rules and regulatory requirements in place that things like this are just remote and virtually impossible without the say of the populace."

Parikh says Ghost Robotics regularly works with legislators as well as government agencies.

"This is not done in a vacuum .... It has to go through processes and rules. Everything we do, everything, gets questioned. Everyone has the ability to question what we're doing."

This isn't just about the border

When Greg Nojeim heard about the robot dogs, his mind filled with questions. Chief among them: Has anyone studied their impact on privacy?

"The border has become a testing ground for new and intrusive surveillance technology," says Nojeim, co-director of the security and surveillance project at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

And in many cases, he says, the law hasn't caught up with the developing technology.

"Once the platform becomes accepted, believe me, new uses will be developed. It's inevitable. And I don't think we're ready as a society to say, this use is permissible, this is not. I don't think that legislatures are ready to say this is permissible, this use is not. ... I'm concerned that the technology is getting ahead of the law."

He says when that happens, civil liberties suffer. And that, he says, should matter to everyone, whether you live near the border or not.

As a recent Los Angeles Times opinion column noted, surveillance technologies that start out at the border often make their way into other parts of the country.

Facial recognition technology is one recent example, Nojeim says.

"That technology has now spread to some police departments, and people are finding that it doesn't identify people as well as it could, and that people of color are being misidentified at alarming rates," he says.

If robot dogs start patrolling the border, Nojeim says, it's only a matter of time before they could show up in your community, too.

MOSCOW —

Russia's Foreign Ministry on Sunday rejected a British claim that Russia was seeking to replace Ukraine's government with a pro-Moscow administration, and that former Ukrainian lawmaker Yevheniy Murayev was being considered as a potential candidate.

Britain's Foreign Office on Saturday also named several other Ukrainian politicians it said had links with Russian intelligence services, along with Murayev who is the leader of a small pro-Russia party that has no seats in the parliament.

The U.K. government made the claim based on an intelligence assessment, without providing evidence to back it up. It comes amid high tensions between Moscow and the West over Russia's designs on Ukraine.

"The disinformation spread by the British Foreign Office is more evidence that it is the NATO countries, led by the Anglo-Saxons, who are escalating tensions around Ukraine," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on the Telegram messaging app Sunday. "We call on the British Foreign Office to stop provocative activities, stop spreading nonsense."

British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said the information "shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking."

Truss urged Russia to "deescalate, end its campaigns of aggression and disinformation, and pursue a path of diplomacy," and reiterated Britain's view that "any Russian military incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake with severe costs.

Britain has sent anti-tank weapons to Ukraine as part of efforts to bolster its defenses against a potential Russian attack.

Amid diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis, U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is expected to meet Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu for talks in Moscow. No timing has been given for the meeting, which would be the first U.K.-Russia bilateral defense talks since 2013.

The U.S. has mounted an aggressive campaign in recent months to unify its European allies against a new Russian invasion of Ukraine. The White House called the U.K. government assessment "deeply concerning" and said it stands with the duly elected Ukrainian government.

"This kind of plotting is deeply concerning," National Security Council spokeswoman Emily Horne said. "The Ukrainian people have the sovereign right to determine their own future, and we stand with our democratically-elected partners in Ukraine."

The assessment came as President Joe Biden spent Saturday at the presidential retreat Camp David outside of Washington huddling with his senior national security team about the Ukraine situation. A White House official said the discussions included efforts to de-escalate the situation with diplomacy and deterrence measures being coordinated closely with allies and partners, including security assistance to Ukraine.

___

Jill Lawless in London, Jari Tanner in Helsinki, and Matthew Lee and Zeke Miller in Washington, contributed to this report.

MOSCOW —

Moscow and Washington both took uncompromising stands Tuesday ahead of more talks amid a Russian troop buildup near Ukraine, with the U.S. rebuffing a demand to halt NATO expansion and the Kremlin saying it will quickly see if it's worthwhile to even keep negotiating.

At Monday’s talks in Geneva, Russia insisted on guarantees precluding NATO’s expansion to Ukraine and other ex-Soviet nations and demanded to roll back the military alliance’s deployments in Eastern Europe. The U.S. firmly rejected the demands as a nonstarter.

The U.S. envoy to NATO set a tough tone for the next talks with Moscow, ruling out any concessions on the alliance's eastward expansion. "We will not allow anyone to slam NATO’s open-door policy shut," said U.S. Ambassador Julianne Smith.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the Geneva talks as "open, comprehensive and direct," but emphasized that Moscow wants quick results. "We see no significant reason for optimism," he told reporters.

Peskov said Russia-NATO talks in Brussels on Wednesday and a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Vienna on Thursday would show whether further negotiations are worthwhile.

"It will become clear in what direction and how to proceed and if it makes sense," he said. "We absolutely wouldn’t accept dragging this process out endlessly."

Smith said, "not a single ally inside the NATO alliance is willing to budge or negotiate anything as it relates to NATO’s open-door policy."

"We stand firm in pushing back on security proposals that are simply nonstarters," she told reporters. "There’s widespread unity and consensus across the alliance on the challenge that sits before us."

The U.S. estimates Russia has massed about 100,000 troops near Ukraine, a buildup that has stoked fears of an invasion. Moscow says it has no plans to attack and rejects Washington’s demand to pull back its forces, saying it has the right to deploy them wherever necessary.

President Vladimir Putin has warned Moscow would take unspecified "military-technical measures" if the U.S. and its allies don't meet its demands. He spoke with members of his Security Council, saying he wanted to discuss unspecified issues related to security and infrastructure in border areas.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said it was "too early to tell whether the Russians are serious about the path to diplomacy or not," or whether they will use the talks as a "pretext to claim that diplomacy couldn’t possibly work" and move forward with an invasion.

Psaki sidestepped questions about whether the U.S. agreed the Geneva talks did not provide reason for greater optimism. She noted, however, that they had included discussions about the placement of missiles in Europe and reciprocal limits on military exercises.

"There are a range of discussions that can be a part of a diplomatic path, but ultimately it’s up to the Russians to determine about whether they’re going to take a serious approach," she said.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who led the Russian delegation in Geneva, said afterward that it would be hard to make any progress on other issues if the U.S. and its allies stonewall Moscow’s demand for guarantees precluding NATO’s expansion.

The U.S. and its allies reject the demand for NATO not to admit new members, emphasizing that a key alliance principle is that membership is open to any qualifying country and no outsiders have veto power. But Washington and NATO also say they are ready to discuss arms control, confidence-building measures, greater transparency and risk reduction if Russia takes a constructive stance.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said she briefed the North Atlantic Council on her talks in Geneva. "The United States is committed to working in lockstep with our Allies and partners to urge de-escalation and respond to the security crisis caused by Russia," she tweeted.

The U.S. warned that Russia will face unprecedented sanctions if it attacks Ukraine.

Amid the tensions, the Russian military said 3,000 troops were taking part in drills at firing ranges in the Voronezh, Belgorod, Bryansk and Smolensk regions near Ukraine.

In 2014, Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula after the ouster of its Moscow-friendly leader and threw its weight behind a separatist insurgency in the country's east, where more than seven years of fighting has killed over 14,000 people.

A 2015 peace deal brokered by France and Germany has helped end large-scale battles, but frequent skirmishes have continued and efforts to negotiate a political settlement have failed.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met Tuesday in Kyiv with French and German officials on prospects for another meeting of the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany, saying he wanted "substantive talks on ending the conflict."

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said he spoke with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday, saying Kyiv and Washington "remain united in seeking de-escalation through diplomacy and strength."

___

Aamer Madhani and Ellen Knickmeyer in Washington and Yuras Karmanau in Kyiv, Ukraine, contributed.