”quite a bit better” re European (descended) Cubans is an enormous, enormous understatement - as well as an insult. A Cuban brain surgeon or architect probably scores higher than the majority of U.S. citizens. My point is:
1. As a category, the term ” Hispanic” has about as much validity as ”men named Mike” .
2. The writer dismisses culture as a factor - yet there is no uniform or consistent ”Hispanic culture”. And to comment on the influence, impact or role of culture in that equation, the writer would have to be fully conversant with each and every distinct culture of Latin America - otherwise, how could he make a determination? His assessment is therefore unfounded.
You’re entirely missing his point. He’s dealing with statistics, averages and populations. He makes no genetics-based claims, so that a population is artificially, in that sense, cobbled together makes no difference.
In his dissertation he uses normal statistical curves to say that there are high-aptitude individuals to be found in all countries and all situations scross the planet. He advises that we find a way to identify and invite in such individuals rather than continue with our current system.
He points out that we have been taking in immigrants who significantly underperform our current population in aptitude. Further he looks to research showing those who can’t keep up academically drop out, stop trying, and become members of the dysfunctional underclass. He suggests that this greater gap for our current immigrants s mm d their offspring explains why their second and third generations here actually do w Po rse than the first generation (which is the opposite of what we saw eith a ll earlier immigration waves).