Immigration detention usually happens out of public view — inside private prisons, through sealed court filings, and far from scrutiny. But in Oklahoma, those cases are starting to surface.

In recent months, immigrants who’ve lived in the U.S. for years — some for decades — have been jailed for months without bond hearings, even when they have no criminal convictions and deep ties to their communities. Their only path to release has been through habeas corpus petitions filed in federal court.

At the same time, Oklahoma is becoming a growing hub for immigration detention as private prison companies expand their footprint.

Our reporter, Ari Fie, has been digging into these cases to understand who’s being detained, why this is happening now, and what it means for due process. I spoke with her about what she found.

For the past several months, Frontier reporter Clifton Adcock has been digging into one of the fastest-moving — and least transparent — developments in Oklahoma: the rapid rise of data centers. These facilities promise big investment, but they also bring enormous demands for power and water, and much of the planning has happened out of public view.

In this week’s Q&A, Clifton walks us through how he pieced this story together: from tracking down hard-to-find utility filings to decoding dense regulatory documents and uncovering data center projects that weren’t publicly disclosed. He also talks about the challenges of explaining highly technical issues in a way readers can understand, and what surprised him most as he followed the money, energy, and incentives behind Oklahoma’s data-center boom.

Read the story: Oklahoma’s data center boom is about to hit the grid — and your power bill

Frontier: We spoke back in the spring about the cellphone bill you ran that would remove cell phones from classrooms. Catch our listeners up on where that stands today.

Seifried: It’s been in effect for almost two months in Oklahoma, and the results and the feedback have just been amazing. I heard from schools and administrators early on, talking about the lunchrooms being louder and the hallways being more crowded. My favorite recent anecdote is library books are being checked out at a higher frequency than at this point last year, so a lot of really positive feedback.

Frontier: That kind of leads us into what we're talking about today, which is you have an interim study about technology in schools. So tell us a little bit about that study and what you hope to learn from it.

Seifried: Yeah, this study sort of really dovetails off of my work on removing cell phones, because as I went around the state and talked about it over the last two years, I would meet with parents who were concerned about the use of screens and laptops in their child's classrooms. And they would question if learning was happening, or how much students are using screens. And at first, I sort of didn't want to become the anti-screens girl. But I think it's a good conversation to have.

This study got to be a little bit more academic. We got into the neuroscience of how we learn and or how we don't learn. I also serve as chair of the technology committee, so I sort of get to wear these two really fascinating hats. As we're trying so desperately to increase our academic achievement, I want us to make sure that we're doing the right things. And maybe the right thing isn't the new and shiny technology or the new and shiny software, or this platform that promises the moon.

Frontier: That’s not only a conversation that's taking place as it relates to schools. Right now, what's the main conversation we’re having in the state? It's AI, it's about data centers, the impact of this technology and this industry. And there is that discussion among adults, too, about the use of AI as a tool. Is it productive to give your creative juices to a computer as opposed to just doing this yourself? How much of our brain power are we giving over to computers? And does that, in a sense, make us less human? You have mentioned technology and how it should be used, with caution, as a teaching tool. And I just kind of wondered at this point in this process, what evidence would you want to see before deciding if a specific type of technological platform or in-class technology is truly improving learning outcomes?

Seifried: One of the main things that we really took away was there are a lot of things that can improve educational outcomes. Like the air conditioning, or just a little bit of extra tutoring that kind of moves the needle. But what we should be asking, really, is not, does this move the needle, but does this move the needle better than something else. So for example, if we spend $10 million on this software across the state of Oklahoma, is that going to move the needle for our students more than taking that $10 million and investing it into our teachers or our reading specialists or giving stipends to teachers who are just crushing it in the classroom?

AI is an amazing tool. But you have to master those foundational educational blocks, right? You have to be able to do the hard thing first. One of our speakers likened it to learning how to drive. If you learn to drive a stick shift, and then you go to automatic, no problem. But if you start with an automatic and you go stick, you have so much more difficulty going backwards and mastering those topics. And so I just wondered, do these softwares and platforms and AI chat bots really help us learn more than a quality teacher sitting down and working with your student?

Frontier: You're essentially talking about opportunity cost here. If you’ve got $10 million...