Read other letters about this article
I hate to say this, but Kilmeade does have a point, albeit he could have used better rhetoric (different species, that sounds reminiscent of the Eugenics and social darwinism era). This is analogous to saying people marrying in sub-Saharan Africa having a greater immunity to malaria. This is because being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia (having the genotype, but not the phenotype for the disease) has an advantage in combating malaria.
Did Kilmeade sound social darwinist? Yes. Was that his intention? I highly doubt it? Is Kilmeade an opinionated blowhard schmuck? Yes.