The folks who argue that stateless refugees be offered no charity seem to be the same people arguing that they have "no issue" with citizenship for sale.
One you get a benefit from, the other not so much. Seems perfectly logical to me.
The person being discussed here was granted citizenship, justified (at least) partly because of his philanthropy/charitable acts.
If we're (NZ) granting privilege to people because they're charitable, wouldn't it be hypocrisy to argue against offering charity yourself to the most under-privileged?
Are you saying that charity is a bad idea - unless you get a return?