Toys "R" Us baby contest sparks fuss...

Toys 'R' Us baby contest sparks fuss Sat Jan 6, 11:47 AM ET

NEW YORK - Toys "R" Us Inc. has come under fire for denying a Chinese-American infant a $25,000 savings bond prize in a contest for the New Year's first baby because the company said the girl's mother is not a legal U.S. resident.

The company's decision — which came less than a month after it opened its first mainland China store, in Shanghai — has infuriated some Chinese-American advocates.

Yuki Lin was born at the stroke of midnight at New York Downtown Hospital, according to hospital officials. She won a random drawing held to break a tie with two other babies entered in the contest, Toys "R" Us spokeswoman Kathleen Waugh said.

The Wayne, N.J.-based company had said the prize would go to the first American baby born in 2007.

Although promotional materials called for "all expectant New Year's mothers" to apply for the contest, Waugh said eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents. Many sweepstakes have such requirements, Waugh said.

Although Yuki was born an American citizen, Waugh said the contest administrator was told that Yuki's mother "was not a legal resident of the United States."

Attempts to reach Yuki's parents, Yan Zhu Liu and Han Lin, 22, for comment were unsuccessful early Saturday. Their immigration status was not clear.

The prize went instead to runner-up Jayden Swain, born 19 seconds after midnight at Northeast Georgia Medical Center in Gainesville, Ga. The third baby in the running was born in Bay Shore, N.Y., to a couple from El Salvador.

Some Chinese-American advocates say the company's decision smacks of second-class citizenship.

"People are just pretty much outraged," said John Wang, president of the New York-based Asian American Business Development Center.

Albert Wang, an attorney, has launched an e-mail campaign on the issue. "She was deprived of $25,000 intended to be used for her college education because of who her parents are," he said.

Janet Keller, a grandmother of the winning baby, said revisiting the contest would be unfair.

"She was disqualified — that should be it," Keller said. "Don't go changing your mind now."

************************************************** ******

So, any comments on THIS one???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moosmom

eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents.

---

There ya go. She was not eligible.

I think it's a little unfair that she was deprived of the money. She's a little baby after all, and she's just been deprived of a future that was perhaps a little brighter than the one she will now live. Who knows, maybe her parents, being immigrants, may have needed to find their feet in a new life in a new country and the money could have helped them care for their daughter in times of desperation. We'll never know.

I suppose rules are rules, but I think a better rule would have been 'the BABY must be an American citizen', which is what she is.

Agreed-the rules of the contest were that the parents had to be legal citizens...the rules were not followed, the girl gets DQ'd.

Quote:

"Some Chinese-American advocates say the company's decision smacks of second-class citizenship"

No, it's actually NO citizenship.

Gee Donna ;) (miss ya hehe)............ sorry but I agree, no rules followed, no money cometh.
Our daughter won a 1000.00 shopping card to a local grocery chain, lost it because her sister works for a different branch of the chain, oh well ,fine print stated" members of family or employess of any of our parent or subsidiary companies not eligible...." She didn't read all the print, and was bummed but agreed with the decision. :p

Whatever...but PLEASE..there is a difference between legal resident and citizen. Those two terms get tossed around as if they are the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Whatever...but PLEASE..there is a difference between legal resident and citizen. Those two terms get tossed around as if they are the same thing.

---

Indeed, and they are not the same. Legal resident means the mother was here LEGALLY wether she be a citizen or here on a visa or whatever. If the contest said Legal Resident, she is elegable, if it said Citizen than she is not.

If it were me, I'd fight for it on the technicallity alone. People need to learn to use proper phrasing, especially when it comes to matters of money.

*edit* Im not sure if it said the woman was a legal resident or not...if she isn't than the issue is moot really.

The child was DEPRIVED money for her education? Hello? Here we go with the entitlement theory. There was no deprivation.

If the rules stated X and she/her mother didn't qualify, then, it goes to the next person.

According to cnn.com, toys-r-us has reversed the decision:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/06/fir....ap/index.html

Well chances are the check is made out to the parents... NOT the baby. Even if it said legal resident it states in the article that she was NOT a citizen OR a legal resident.

The rules were printed clearly and had it been a white family that was dq'd because of a rule there would be absolutely NO complaints.

Stupidity that THIS is news.

Not to mention.....

why is this child more deserving of the money?

they didn't obey the rules so why does that baby deserve the money more than the next baby in the competition. They could be JUSt as misfortuned or more.

...eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents ... Yuki's mother "was not a legal resident of the United States."

Ummmm .... I'm failing to see why this was ever questioned. If a contest at the grocery store says, "Must be present to win." and I'm sitting home taking a nap instead of being present in the store, I don't win, right? Should I then sue? And say I was "deprived" of my free twelve-pack of Squirt? NO. I didn't follow the rules, therefore I can't win. Duh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twisterdog

[I][B] If a contest at the grocery store says, "Must be present to win."

---

I always thought you had to wrap yourself up with paper and bows to get the prize.....Or am I wrong?


Another case of PC to keep the squeaky wheel and rule breakers happy.


Now, If it was DIET SQUIRT then you call a lawyer!! :rolleyes:

--------------------

I vote the SOLOMON solution..split the prize three ways, put the money in trust until the kids turn 21.

Eff the parents and the lawyers.

LOL Richard.

Anyway, who is to say this was really for the child's education? Becuase the parents said so? PFFT. The child that followed the rules and won could be even more deprived. If they take the money away from the baby that won legitimately then I would be outraged.

I'm so sick of this feeling of entitlement everyone has today. You aren't entitled to ANYTHING but freedom. the rest you must earn and work for.

I'm all for a hand up.... not a hand OUT

NEW YORK - Toys "R" Us Inc. has come under fire for denying a Chinese-American infant a $25,000 savings bond prize in a contest for the New Year's first baby because the company said the girl's mother is not a legal U.S. resident.


The company's decision — which came less than a month after it opened its first mainland China store, in Shanghai — has infuriated some Chinese-American advocates.

Do you think this had anything to do with their changing their minds and giving away "three" prizes? $$$$$$$

Quote:

---

The third baby in the running was born in Bay Shore, New York, to a couple from El Salvador

---

Lemme get this straight. They disqualified the Chinese American baby because her mother was not a legal US Citizen, yet they awarded it to a baby who was born to El Savaldorian parents??? I don't get it. :confused: :confused:

Donna, the El Salvadorian parents could be "legal residents" of the United States, so they would be eligible.

Oh, okay. :p :rolleyes: