//I wonder if there would be such an outcry about the number of immigrants arriving in the UK if their skin was white and they were of English heritage.//
Once again you misunderstand and, by implication, falsely accuse those who are concerned about this problem of racism.
Last year the number of long-term immigrants granted right to settle in the UK was 1.2 million. The number to which this question refers (those arriving from France by small boat) was around 44,000. So around 28 times as many migrants arrived here with leave to do so, than those who didn’t have permission. Among the 1.2m were many people whose skin was not white and whose heritage was almost certainly not English. Yet, although these numbers are extremely high (and some people, me included, would suggest they are excessively so) there is nowhere near the furore (if there is any at all) about these arrivals.
Your notion that people who are opposed to small-boat migration are racists is therefore, once again, unfounded. People concerned about the small boat problem are not particularly interested in the colour of the arrivals’ skin. If they were, they would be far more concerned about the 1.2m “legal” arrivals than they are with the 44k “illegal” ones (please don’t argue about the “illegal” description – I know you consider small boat arrivals not to be illegal and I’ve used those terms just to differentiate between the two). But they’re not so worried. I don’t see any widespread opposition or “outcry” to the conventional arrivals – whatever the colour or their skin – and no moves by the government to counter the problem (who in fact are actively encouraging it by providing visas for entry).
In short, your furtive claim that people opposed to the small boat arrivals are racist is unfounded. So whilst we’re on that subject, which you keep on resurrecting without foundation, any views yet on whether my argument against such arrivals makes me racist?