Debate It : Citizenship decisions based on medical history??

I read this article yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/31/australia.residency.denied.ap/

First read of the headlines and I went...no way. Thats unfair. This man deserves citizenship and cannot be denied just because his son suffers from Down syndrome. After all, who is immune to such situations? Anyone could be in his shoes and I would be really mad if someone discriminated against me due to my son's illness. But then as many things, put more thought and you relaize its not all black or white.

Well, the main argument for Aussie govt is " the boy would pose a burden on taxpayers for his medical care, education and other service". Again on first reading seems absolutely heartless and lacking any sort of consideration. But reflect it and you go, well...Here is someone who is seeking citizenship and as a govt, I have the right to reject it. Also we have the first duty of serving exisiting citizens and doing what is fair to them. The dad claims that he could take on all expenses for his son and will not be a burden. I think that is not an useful argument. Consider this. You take his word and give him citizenship. Now sometime into the future the dad really does not have enough to cover for the expenses (maybe due to rising costs or other unforseen circumstances)...What do you do then? Revoke his citizenship ? Thats worse because then you are not standing by a "citizen" . Also tomorrow if some other guy whose family member has a similar medical condition is denied citizenship because they, unlike the dad here, cannot pay the medical costs...Then you are discriminating based on fiscal ability..again debatable if thats right or wrong??

Also, think about what a country considers before giving anyone citizenship...Or for that matter even a VISA...I think the main question is...Does this guy give more to this country than take? Most people on VISA and who are given citizenships are well educated high tax paying folks. Hereby the govt improves the overall standing of the country. Absolutely no point granting citizenship to any Tom, Dick and Harry correct?

Back to the case, the dad claims to have stayed in Australia for 2 years...Well, not a long time and its not as if this man has put all his life in service for this country and expects at least an acknowledgment in the form of citizenship?
So here are the consolidated facts I got from the article:
1) Govt needs to think of existing tax payers first
2) The applicant has not necessarily served the country enough to have a special case.
3) Think about how VISAs are issued...If you are not giving more than what you take, most likely you do not get it!
4) I totally get the humanitarian argument...But then can we really add that in here and let practicality take a back seat?
5) In this case, the applicants home country (Germany) is in good standing by itself...again this may not be applicable for other applicants.

Overall, I think its the prerogative of the government and refusal is no way unfair.
Maybe I have missed some valuable points?? But thats my take away for now!