The truly dystopian extreme of this challenge would be to maintain and indeed nationalize the full extent of "Jim Crow" discriminations and restrictions while having essentially free society for "white" people. Note that OTL, the South African Apartheid regime could not operate without special sweeping police powers such as "banning" individuals--even "White" individuals who enjoyed the maximum panoply of civil rights the state extended to anyone. To me, it seems morally necessary that a society that arbitrarily limits one set of people's range of human rights must suffer a general cancer of meaningful freedom for all the rest--but a sufficiently clever and uninhibited author might be able to conceive of a society that is quite liberal for "white" people while being exclusive of "colored."
But I suspect such a narrative must be founded on the unquestioned notion of genuine racial disparities, on the idea that race is a true and relevant criterion. Since the uncritical, serious holding of such an idea would get one banned from this site, I don't think we should expect to see it here. Nor do I regret that! My head really does not want to go there.
Given that racist stratification has no scientific basis, it is only sensible that any society that maintains it must suffer deficiencies and derangements. The coexistence of racist and liberal, even progressive, ideals and goals is certainly possible. But not stable; human society is always in flux and dynamic agitation. For Jim Crow to go unquestioned, or anyway triumphant, for the past 60 or 80 years would I think imply the overwhelming victory of reaction across the board.
Whether that would be compatible with a society that is fundamentally not too dissimilar to the modern USA of OTL is another conversation!
