‘Apartheid Country’: Far-Left Pundit Says All Laws Passed Before 1965 Should Be ‘Presumptively Unconstitutional’

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal told “The View” co-hosts on Tuesday that all laws passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be deemed “presumptively unconstitutional.”

Mystal claimed that the U.S. was “functionally an apartheid country” before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, a Civil Rights-era law that prohibited racial discrimination at the ballot boxes. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that a part of the law allowing for federal review of proposed election-related changes before they took effect is unconstitutional.

The justice correspondent accused President Donald Trump’s administration of citing so-called racial laws passed before the Civil Rights Movement to justify the arrest of non-citizens who may pose a threat to the U.S.

“One of the premises for book is that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively unconstitutional,” Mystal said. “Right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, we were functionally an apartheid country. Not everybody who lived here could vote here, so why should I give a about a law that some old white man passed in the 1920s like the Immigration and Nationality Act. When they passed our fundamental immigration commonality law, Congress said in real time that they needed the law to prevent the ‘mongrelization’ of the white race by the inferior races. And I look at the law and I say ‘I don’t think that’s so good.’ I don’t think we should still be using it but we are still using it today.”

WATCH:

📺 Embedded media — coming soon

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 mostly limited immigration to permit Europeans amid widespread fears about the spread of communism during the Cold War. The Trump administration has cited this law to justify the detention and deportation of anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil, who helped facilitate the riots and encampments of Columbia University in the spring of 2024.