That would be kind of late, wouldn't it? Although Hispanic immigrants to the United States are not clamoring for hardline Catholicism (overturning separation of church and state, for instance), there are Islamic immigrants to various countries in Europe who do call for Sharia law (e.g. in the U.K, an example of a pro-Sharia protest: https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/islamist-group-march-for-full-sharia-law-in-britain-6797021.html; and Al Jazeera estimated that 40% of immigrants wanted it as of 2006: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/2/19/poll-40-of-uk-muslims-want-sharia).

The question is whether this should always be okay (freedom of movement + freedom of self-determination), should sometimes be okay (e.g. you have to end up with freedom), or should be the call of the people who currently exist somewhere (and what the limits, if any, of permissible xenophobia are).

Regarding Jewish terrorism, can you please document its occurrence before the violent Palestinian response to nominally legal or at least nonviolent Jewish migration? Obviously the whole issue is mired in violence because of World War I, but of the actual situation on the ground (not declarations of idealists far away), can you please document that it was clearly a strategy as opposed to a response to violence? This doesn't mean it should be condoned, but context is important.