First baby born in 2007's mom not legal resident; prize goes to next born

[gollygee]

http://www.kcci.com/money/10684666/detail.html

Yuki Lin is only a few days old, but she's already the focus of a spat.

Born in the first moments of 2007, she was declared the winner of a New Year's contest welcoming the first baby of the New Year. But sponsor Toys "R" Us has now stripped the Chinese-American infant of the prize.

The company said it disqualified Yuki because her mother's not a legal U.S. resident. A spokeswoman for the company said many sweepstakes have such rules.

The controversy comes shortly after Toys "R" Us opened its first store in mainland China.

*snip*

[Ezlivin]

1. Now what is his 12 brothers and sisters going to do?

:)

[blogslut]

26. Sorry

I was going to let that comment slip but I decided, no.

Let's all read what you wrote again.

[NMDemDist2]

2. the baby is still American though n/t

[pitohui]

6. the baby is not age 18 or older

no one is taking away the baby's citizenship, however, they are taking away the prize he didn't win and giving it to the baby who did win

[WolverineDG]

25. But if both babies are citizens

& that is the criteria, why strip the prizes from one baby to give to the other? :shrug: I guess to some people, some citizens are more equal than others. BTW, the baby's father could be a US citizen & if so, this "stripping" is kind of stupid.

dg

[tammywammy]

27. The prize was for the mother

not the baby.

http://www.firstbabyoftheyear.com/rules.html

"ELIGIBILITY: Sweepstakes only open to women who are pregnant and could plausibly give birth in a U.S. or D.C. hospital, at or after 12:00 am (local time in registrant time zone), on January 1, 2007 and who are legal residents of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. Additionally, U.S. hospitals and OB/GYN offices may enter on behalf of themselves, their obstetricians and their pregnant patients who are legal U.S. residents and who give birth in a registered U.S. hospital. For purposes of this Sweepstakes, "obstetrician" shall include obstetricians, certified midwives or family practitioners who perform the delivery in a registered hospital. Patient consent will be confirmed when winner(s) are determined. Entrants must have Internet access and a valid email address as of the start of the promotion. Void in Puerto Rico and where prohibited or restricted by law. Employees and immediate family members (parents, children or siblings, whether or not the individual lives in the same household) of Babies"R"Us, LeadDog Marketing Group, and their respective parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, participating vendors, promotion or advertising agencies, or any other company involved with the design, production, execution or distribution of the Sweepstakes (all of the above, together with Sponsor, collectively referred to as "Promotion Entities") and immediate family members and household members of each of the foregoing are ineligible to enter. "Household member" shall mean people who share the same residence at least 3 months a year. All federal, state, and local laws and regulations apply."


And the rules states that the mother must be a legal US resident. The mother didn't have to be a citizen, but a legal resident.

[rebel with a cause]

OMG, I wanted to leave on a light note.

Actually the prize is for the baby. The rule is for the mother.

"Grand Prize (1): A $25,000 US Savings Bond for the very First Baby of the Year (awarded in the name of the baby) and a $100 Babies"R"Us Gift Basket. Value of bond at time of awarding equals $12,500 with bond face value effective on date of maturity. Bonds are US Government Series EE and mature 17 years from date of purchase. Winners may cash in the bond for its current market value at any time after six months from date of purchase. Grand Prize Savings Bond will be awarded in baby’s name only to mother of baby."

http://www.firstbabyoftheyear.com/rules.html

[rebel with a cause]

29. Deleted double post

[tyedyeto]

3. 'Not a legal US resident' does not mean she's here illegally.

There are many different status for people in this country which are legal but not necessarily a resident.

[pitohui]

7. yeah, could be on a tourist visa however that's beside the points

mom could be here perfectly legally and still not be a LEGAL RESIDENT of the usa as called for in the rules of the contest

[rodeodance]

9. The decision has infuriated some Chinese-American advocates,......

The decision has infuriated some Chinese-American advocates, who have launched an e-mail campaign on the issue.

Born at a New York City hospital, Yuki was up against two other babies for the $25,000 savings bond. The prize has now gone to a baby born in Georgia 19 seconds after midnight.

[gollygee]

10. Thanks - I corrected it

[angstlessk]

4. Remind me never to purchace anything from Toys R Us ever

again. Like the other poster said...it is an American baby...never mind the mommy!

[pitohui]

8. you weren't going to anyway

call it a hunch

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. Please enlighten us on the basis for such hunch. -nt

[pitohui]

5. many contests DO have this rule

it is not special to toys r us, the first baby born whose parents were in accord w. the rules should have the prize, it's pretty simple really

there's another thread on this in LBN, but unfortunately seems to be entirely dominated with people who have never entered a contest or competed for a prize and hence have no idea that without rules there IS no contest, just endless chaos and accusations and threats of lawsuit and it just never ends

i've won many contests, not the new year baby obviously (altho i used to know a woman who did) -- and if you want to win a lot of contests, enter a lot of contests and know the rules know the rules know the rules

[gollygee]

12. Is this a contest people actually enter?

I thought the "first baby of the new year" was something that just happened - like they gave the prize to whoever happened to be born first. I know that if you sign up for a sweepstakes or some other kind of contest you have to meet guidelines.

[rebel with a cause]

17. that is how it is

and the poster you responded to cannot get that through her head. We are talking about the unfairness that out of three babies born at the same time (within seconds of each other) that the prize went to the baby born in Georgia, because the two born in NY both had parents that were not considered "American" enough. She keeps posting stuff about rules and a contest (maybe poker game?) she was in. I would usually not say anything about another poster but since she has mentioned myself and the other posters as such, I thought I would return the favor.

(edited to take out some venom) ;-)

[Garbo 2004]

19. Apparently it was a contest people had to enter, according to AP story:

From the AP article:

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."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/01/06/toys_r_us_baby_contest_sparks_fuss/

[gollygee]

20. Aaaaah thanks

because I think that makes a big difference. To enter a contest where you don't meet the elgibility requirements is different from being offered something out of the blue and then having it taken away.

[rebel with a cause]

22. I think the mother or the hospital can enter it, but

I am not sure. I found the rules and posted the link below.

But I am big enough to say that I might have been wrong on this point, but I still disagree with the rules. Bur then look at my name, I don't like "rules" that hit me as discrimatory. We can disagree whether they are or not, but I feel they are. ok. I'll just fade away now, my head bowed in shame. :D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. I hereby declare that if someone starts a collection for the baby I'll give $10.

Make it PayPal so it'll be easier for me to contribute.

And whoever doesn't like THAT can go fuck him/herself with a pineapple. Sideways.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Some "genius" MBA TRU exec should have expected this possibility and

it was foolish to believe this wouldn't have resulted in bad PR all around.

[progressivebydesign]

15. How freakin' IRONIC. They MASS IMPORT crap from China..

..and deny this little girl a prize because her Mom is from China. That is so fucked up. Reminds me of a while back when a local newspaper in our area denied the prize to a girl because she was unmarried.

[judaspriestess]

16. whew, thought there for a minute it would have been one of those

'Mexican" illegals

:sarcasm:


rules are rules and if you are not a citizen then that is the way it should be. I'm sure these type of rules are in place worldwide.

[dsc]

18. I would imagine this has as much to do with taxes as anything else

I am sure there is a rule stating the person has to be a US citizen and over 18 in order to win. I have never seen a contest which didn't have those rules. My best guess is that the citizen thing is so the cost of the contest can be written off for tax purposes.

[rebel with a cause]

21. If anyone is interested

the rules for the contest are here http://www.firstbabyoftheyear.com/rules.html


"ELIGIBILITY: Sweepstakes only open to women who are pregnant and could plausibly give birth in a U.S. or D.C. hospital, at or after 12:00 am (local time in registrant time zone), on January 1, 2007 and who are legal residents of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. Additionally, U.S. hospitals and OB/GYN offices may enter on behalf of themselves, their obstetricians and their pregnant patients who are legal U.S. residents and who give birth in a registered U.S. hospital. For purposes of this Sweepstakes, "obstetrician" shall include obstetricians, certified midwives or family practitioners who perform the delivery in a registered hospital. Patient consent will be confirmed when winner(s) are determined. Entrants must have Internet access and a valid email address as of the start of the promotion. Void in Puerto Rico and where prohibited or restricted by law. Employees and immediate family members (parents, children or siblings, whether or not the individual lives in the same household) of Babies"R"Us, LeadDog Marketing Group, and their respective parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, participating vendors, promotion or advertising agencies, or any other company involved with the design, production, execution or distribution of the Sweepstakes (all of the above, together with Sponsor, collectively referred to as "Promotion Entities") and immediate family members and household members of each of the foregoing are ineligible to enter. "Household member" shall mean people who share the same residence at least 3 months a year. All federal, state, and local laws and regulations apply."

If I understand it correctly", both the parents or the hospital can enter the baby into the contest, but the hospital must send the birth certificate into the contest on Jan. 1st, 2007. It seems we may all have been right/wrong on this matter as far as the contest is concerned.

Yes, these are the rules and it is a contest, but is the contest fair? I don't know, it can be argued both ways I guess, but for me it is not. I don't like contest very much anyway and this is why.

[tammywammy]

23. It reads pretty much

like all contest rules. This is the important part "who are legal U.S. residents."

Unfortunately, the mother isn't a legal U.S. resident. The winner is the mother that gives birth first, not the baby that's born first.

I think it's a fair contest. It's not like the legal U.S. resident wasn't included in the rules.

[rebel with a cause]

28. I will bid you adieu now

Off to cut some hair. The last thing I want to say is that to prove what they were saying, someone else should have found the rules. It is unfair that I had to go out and find the rules myself to prove their point. :sarcasm: joking, making light of the situation, lightening the mood, and etc. Bye.

[Retrograde]

24. what about other time zones?

Wouldn't "first baby born in the U.S", no matter what the other conditions, tip the scales in favor of the Eastern Time Zone? Those poor kiddies in Hawai'i and Alaska never had a chance!

[Recovered Repug]

33. Rules state local time of the contestant.

[sandnsea]

30. 3 NYC moms

I'm wondering how the Georgia baby, 19 seconds after midnight, has won the prize. Maybe these other moms didn't enter.

"..In Brooklyn, two boys were born just a second apart. Both sets of parents are of Nigerian descent.

Oladipupo Oluwagbemiga was born exactly at midnight at Long Island College Hospital...

"At Brookdale Hospital, Odunayo Muhammed arrived one second after midnight..."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01022007/news/regionalnews/new_years__new_dears_regionalnews_lorena_mongelli.htm

[ContraBass Black]

31. Do they measure from crowning, or separation?

[AlCzervik]

32. According to the Yahoo---Toy's r US just said it will give the baby the$$$$

[HEyHEY]

34. That is so stupid... the first one born is the first one born

If there is a legal reason that the kid can't win... it's a stupid law... But if it's Toys R Us policy... then fuck them. They won't be getting a cent of my money.

[rebel with a cause]

35. The first one born was the one with a Chinese mother

There were three finalist, two from NY and one from Georgia. The winner was one from NY, but because the official rules said the mother must be a "legal resident" of the US, they then took the prize away from them and gave it to the baby in Georgia. The other baby was born to immigrants from El Salvador. Anyway, to make a long story as short as I can. There was much to do about the prize being taken away for the first baby. Then Toys R Us reconsidered and awarded a $25,000 savings bond to all three babies. the reasons (I believe) being as follows.

1 public outcry and from Asian activist groups
2) fear legal actions (see 3 & 4)
3) the prize was for the baby (all USA citizens) and not the mothers
4) on the brochures handed out to the hospitals and mothers to be, there was no mention of "legal resident" restrictions mentioned. It can only be found in the official rules on the official web site. No computer means mother would not know these rules and would not know that her baby would not be qualified.

This year, I believe, might have been the first time TRU changed the rules to where the parents or the hospitals (with mothers consent) both could enter the baby. Last year the parents entered the baby with a photo and the prize was not decided until mid January. This year, probably for PR, they pushed it up to the deadline being the 1st of January, with it required for the hospital to fax the birth certificate to their headquarters. This is how I believe this all happened after reading the rules from this year and last. Of course I could be wrong.