You can have economically positive immigration without freedom of movement. See: Chinese people in the UK.

Nobody said any different. We currently have it with freedom of movement. The fact it might work without freedom of movement isn't a compelling reason to change a system that's working.

the contribution from countries like Romania is net negative.

Last I heard, we had no specifics on those Romania, Bulgaria and other recent additions, but were expecting a net positive result. Perhaps you can share the source of your "net negative" claim?

Economics is only one side of the coin. I and many others contend that it has been societally detrimental.

Yes, I understand your argument is that you want to keep out people you dislike.

It is not selfish to restrict access to a country, which is the homeland of a people or peoples, to people from other countries in exactly the same way it isn't selfish to restrict access to your house to people off the street.

"We were here first" isn't the argument; "We founded and built this country on this land as a home for ourselves in a way that suits us, our culture and our society - it exists for us and does not exist to provide economic opportunities for people around the world, though we can and do allow such opportunities to be pursued by others and for people to enter our homeland at our discretion" is the argument.

Your argument is actually "our ancestors were here first so we should be the only ones to have a say in who lives here". It's, sadly, a common way of thinking, and it's divisive, selfish and destructive. It promotes idiotic notions like patriotism, nationalism, racism and xenophobia.

in exactly the same way it isn't selfish to restrict access to your house to people off the street