Comments

1. ren wrote:

   Before I’m accused of being white, out of disclousure I’m Asian American. While I think it’s great that Yuki squeezed free money from a corporation, to claim this a victory for Asian Americans makes me cringe. Not all issues with an Asian in it is a worthy battle. If Asian American advocates want to voice their unified opinon, fine, but riding this one as some significant battle makes me wince.

   Correct me on this, but Sperber seems a bit dismissive of the parents involvement. As if they just found themselves one day boiled up in this controversy. I’m curious about that claim, because Jason frames it so it sounds that hospitals or doctors entered on behalf of their patients without their consent. I know (at least for my newspaper) they can’t print a new birth info without the consent of the parents. That would be an invasion of privacy especially in issues where the birth is a product of two cousins who don’t want their extended family to find out and other cases where personal privacy is an issue. Not sure I’m convinced that a hospitol or a doctor would so flagretnly toss out medical confidentiality agreement with a patient all for the glory of a Toys R’Us New Years Baby Distinction. Patient – Doctor/Hospital confidentiality is sacred, for some doctors I know more so than their bounds of holy matrimony. It’s unlikely that any doctor or hospital would do this, despite Serber’s wish to absolve the blame of participation from the parents. I do however believe, reasonably, that hospitals were “encouraged” to submit candidates such that they might ask the parents without actually divolving into the wordyness of legality. Therefore the parents are making a decisions that is laregely uninformed. If you wanted to make that claim, then yes, the hospital and doctors would carry some blame of that blame. But considering that our whole medical system is build upon the foundation of trust and confidentiality between hospitals, doctors, pharmacies with their patients… I have little reason to believe it was done without consent.

   You shouldn’t go changing the legal stipulation that was put forth for participtation in this contest, disqualified is disqualified. Chinese-American advocates can blaim this on the idea of Asians as foreigners or second-class citizens but what justification have they made that correlates to the fact that based on the legal rules put forth by the contest, the parents did not meet eligibility period. Should all under 18 Asian Americans who want to buy lottery tickets and are refused due to the legal stipulation that only 18+ can purchase have a fair claim that such decisions are due to vendors viewing asians as foreigners or second-class citizens? Racially motivated biasis is not prevelant, certainly if you (who were denied) whishes to imbue the situation such that it becomes a racial issue you’re free to do so, but don’t go claiming it as the motivation of your opponent without justification. Then the arguement that it wasn’t Mrs. Lin, but rather her daughter that was the winner of this contest. Again see this as an underage child holding a winning lottery ticket and then declares that because he is legally ineligable, that technically his “legal” stewards (parents) are therefore rightfully the winners. This would be looked at with a bit of incredulity by the courts. Some Asian American advocate got it in their head to interprete this issue as a “cause”. Sadly it’s this nationalistic tone that asian adovcates have applied to this stupid contest that makes it such a weak battle.

   To quote the immortal words of Chris Rock, what the f**k did you win? I don’t see Toys’R'Us “backing down”. Backing down would be to give Yuki the award and with it follows the implication that this is an American baby. But that would require a demarcation between winner and loser and this contest had none. Instead they gave the prize to all three, so instead of answering the big question they avoid it completely by just making everyone a winner. That’s heartfelt to some, rather disgusting to me. How exactly do you claim Yuki won what was rightfully hers if all end up with the same prize, that to me is a lame handout. Explain to me how this is “fair”? This is the notion of equality gone astray. It’s not like they reversed their opinion that the child was not the first American baby, they merely reversed their decision as to who is awarded the prize. When I was a child I found it a bit insulting to win the math bee and get candy but then have the teacher award everyone in the class equally because well… they participated.

   While I disagree with caller Latasha that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which became part of the 14the amendmeent should be recinded, I do agree however it is often welded incorrectly. It applies in constraining the oppressive power of the government, not of a private company who has the right to stipulate their own rules as long as it stays within the law. You can wave the flag and speak poetically of god given freedoms and equality for all but when it boils down to it the legality of one’s citizenship is the issue. It’s the legal understanding that constitues citizen, that’s what it means to live in a country of laws and not poetic metaphors. Advocates think this is a great victory but have they considered what good the money is if the parents are deported? Or consider the hasseles these parents will have to opening that bank account for their child or the medicaid that will be denied to them. I just don’t see a $25,000 savings bond a victory.

   Posted 10 Jan 2007 at 9:16 pm ¶

2. Lyn wrote:

   Ren –

   You said everything that I was thinking, and so coherently at that!

   Posted 10 Jan 2007 at 9:40 pm ¶

3. alex wrote:

   From a p.r. point of view, toys r us had no choice but to give the prize to all three babies. Toys r us messed up royally in the first place – not by denying yuki the prize money – but by forumulating the contest rules in such a way that potentially a fully american baby could be denied the prize. Steps taken after the issue was brought to light was just to cover their asses from a pr perspective.

   As far as whether it is a victory for yuki, or a disaster for the parents, is still to be decided, but this incident did bring to light the issue of second-class citizenship for babies who are fully american. (Why deny an American baby a prize based on the status of the parents?)

   Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 12:08 am ¶

4. Kendra wrote:

   I’m very curious to hear your thoughts on the Paula Zahn Chinese adoption reports over the past week or so. Transcripts are available at
   http://adoptioninfoaccuracy.blogspot.com/

   Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 12:19 am ¶

5. alex wrote:

   The overwhelming favoritism of chinese children over american black children is absolutely rooted in stereotypes. It’s not right, but the parents are choosing the kid, and they’re going to be raising the kid, so it’s their choice in the end.

   As far as the chinese response in raising the quality of the adoptive parents, they are only doing what they perceive as best for these chinese foster kids. But there is also the question of whether these tighter restrictions will curtail adoption and create a “surplus” of chinese kids who need homes. If that’s case, I think the rules will eventually be adjusted so that a sort of equilibrium, or middle ground, is reached.

   Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 1:48 am ¶

6. ren wrote:

   You make some interesting points Alex.

   “Toys r us messed up royally in the first place – not by denying yuki the prize money – but by forumulating the contest rules in such a way that potentially a fully american baby could be denied the prize.”

   I don’t agree with you that Toys’R'Us formulated their contest to deny an American Baby the prize. Was there a potential of denying the prize… yes… if the “potential”, you speak of is when the parents don’t read/ignore the fine legal print that requires them to hold US citizenship. So the contract voiding action of the parents was the fault of Toys’R'Us? You believe Toys’R'Us formulated the parent’s non-compliance of the official rules of the contest?

   You obviously have issues with the condition that parents be US citizens. I agree, it seems to lead to problems when people don’t follow the directions. But let me ask, what is the alternative? Remove it? Allow all illegal aliens to step out in the open for a prize and place themselves and their children in danger of being deported? Just wait till illegal aliens who win the contest, get arrested, and then sue the contest-running companies for acting as de facto agents of the INS. Remove that condition for US citizenship and chances are you’ll have arrested illegal aliens taking contest-running companies to court for entrapment. But hey, at least the contest will be “fair”. But let’s stick to the issue that Toys’R'Us wanted that legal condition in their contest rules. Despite your wishing and pretending that condition didn’t exist doesn’t change the legal obligation that Toys’R'Us has to the parents of Yuki, which is technically nothing.

   “Why deny an American baby a prize based on the status of the parents?”

   Why? Easy, because your assertion is that the “Baby” won the prize. Perhaps in the Toys’R'Us PR/Marketing sense Yuki did, however in a legal sense she did not. Unless the eligibility of the contest stated that “you” in the written sense was referring to the newborn and as of yet unborn child, then no the prize is technically not won by the baby. Guaranteed Yuki did not enter that contest, her parents did. Parents act on behalf of the child as a legal guardian/steward therefore their eligibility comes into effect. Nobody is specifically denying the claim that this child is American, simply that the parents did not read the fine legal print on the contest that they were submitting on behalf of their newborn child.

   The legal information on a contest is a contract, by agreeing to enter any contest you not only waive any and all claims against the company, you’re also bound by the official terms of the contest. This is why Toys’R'Us is not obligated to offer Yuki an award. Thus newborns and children can’t win contests unless under parental consent IE the guardian takes legal responsibility. Secondly, it’s a sure bet Yuki’s parents consented to this because the winning of any prize (such as a sweepstakes) require a signed affidavit giving contest runners the right to publicize your image and protect contest runners from any liability. Not smart to sign that if your immigration status in America is sketchy.

   If you don’t follow the conditions you void your chances. You are making an agreement that the conditions of their contest apply to you. All contests have this void disclaimer, if you void it the contest runners have no obligation to guarantee you anything. All contests carry the condition that they may switch out the award or change conditions as they see fit… thus their decision is final.

   I can tell you exactly how they found out Yuki’s parents weren’t legal immigrants. Many contests have a legal condition where you have to offer them your social security number for the companies tax record keeping purposes. Again this requires the “winners” of the contest to be adults (parents), not their newborn children. Ask yourself what if that prize were money, would it be up to Yuki to pay all applicable tax on the winning amount? Of course not, it’s up to her parents, so the conditions of the contest apply to the parents not to the child. The child is winning nothing, the parents are on behalf of the child. The prize may be “rewarded” to the child but the parents uphold the responsibility of the contest.

   A lot of Asian Americans are taking a piss on Toys’R'Us which is funny because they have no real obligation to award that prize to Yuki. You don’t need to pretend they did it out of kindness, more likely saves them from bad publicity, but you should realize that they chose to reward the children without legal obligation. Which for Toys’R'Us, I find commendable. Did this controversy bring to light the issue of ” second-class citizenship for babies”, meh… I guess. It sheds some light but it certainly didn’t solve a thing. Giving the winning prize to all three babies was not solving the greater issue it was a way of burying it.

   Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 2:56 am ¶

7. kim wrote:

   Ren:

   “… Ask yourself what if that prize were money, would it be up to Yuki to pay all applicable tax on the winning amount? Of course not, it’s up to her parents, so the conditions of the contest apply to the parents not to the child.”

   And that is the point.
   That’s why this is too easy.

   ‘Toys’ folded to calm the public clamor, and not risk failure in their new international retail venture.

   Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 3:21 am ¶

8. Lyonside wrote:

   The problem, as I read/hear about it, is that ToysRUs needs a better legal department.

   1. The first error was in saying first “American” baby born (i.e. anyone born on US soil), not the first child of parents who are legal residents or citizens. Which makes you wonder, of course, what image the ToysRUs execs had of who their “winners” would be.

   2. > the fine legal print that requires them to hold US citizenship.

   Un-hunh… unless you’re from Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands (or our other little territories). People born there are US citizens, but from what I’ve read, they were excluded from the contest. Now, maybe it’s because there isn’t a BabiesRUs in those places, but really, then they should have made the contest eligible to a child born of parents who are legal residents/citizens of the 50 states.

   Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 10:42 am ¶

9. kim wrote:

   Alex: what is this?:

   As far as the chinese response in raising the quality of the adoptive parents, they are only doing what they perceive as best for these chinese foster kids.

   Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 12:51 pm ¶

10. kim wrote:

    Lyonside:

    what did you read? that’s unusual to disqualify the children of the parents from the territories…i often read the fine print, and it seems like only the soda/cereal type contests routinely exclude these groups.

    Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 12:54 pm ¶

11. Lyonside wrote:

    Kim: I’m not sure of the exact source, but it may have been Yahoo (AP) or possibly radio on NPR. But yes, PR and the other US territories were excluded. As a private corporation, ToysRUs can do whatever they want to, but it really sounds like they didn’t think this one through.

    Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 3:55 pm ¶

12. Lyn wrote:

    Help me think this one through, because I am really struggling to see the other side here:

    I just really, really do not understand how someone can expect to win a sweepstakes, when they are not a legal resident in the country they are residing in? How does that work? Why does someone who is not a legal immigrant or citizen of a nation expect to have a claim in a sweepstakes competition?

    Please don’t bite my head off, because I really am trying to understant the logic in this one. I have been thinking a lot about this because I am planning on moving to Spain illegally in the next year. I have a list of “hopes” for my life over there — I hope that I can get healthcare, I hope that I can find a landlord who won’t ask too many questions, and I hope to find a few jobs under the table to supplement my teacher’s salary. Winning a sweepstakes prize is neither a hope nor expectation of mine.

    I think that it is pretty clear that the “winners” in this case are the parents, not the child. The child can’t claim anything, let alone say its own name. So, being that the parents are here illegally, wouldn’t they want to “lay low”, rather than rallying the Asian/American population around their “cause”?

    To me this seems like an issue that arose from not reading the fine print. You can’t even win a Doritos prize giveaway if you are not a legal resident, it says so on the labels. So, although the Toys R Us people are idiots for their wording choice ( ” First American Baby”), isn’t it always the case that the recipient (in this case the parents — let’s drop the bs for a minute here) must be a legal resident??

    Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 6:27 pm ¶

13. ren wrote:

    Lyonside, here’s my reasoning on your points.

    “…but really, then they should have made the contest eligible to a child born of parents who are legal residents/citizens of the 50 states.”

    They did. Contests will say it is open only to residents of the 50 United States and the District of Columbia (from this it is understood that US territories are excluded since they are not incorporated within the 50 united states). If you want to ask why Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands don’t count, I honestly can’t tell you. During the course of a hundred thousands contests run in America I have yet to ever hear a complaint lodged by the territories of America stipulating their desire to be included in these contests. People are bringing Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands into the debate but honestly it seems the native residents of these areas could care less. If you can determine why US territories aren’t allowed to vote in Presidential Elections in the US, you’ll probably have your answer why they can’t participate in US based contests.

    It seems people want to blame the lawyers on this issue, but to me the blame falls more squarely on the citizen. so every contest for the past twenty years, be it winning money or a bag of pretzels, was therefore potentially demeaning to illegal aliens and their US born offspring and that potentially every contest ever run was a heated racial controversy waiting to explode? And during the course of a hundred thousand different contests, all of a sudden it strikes us the unfairness and irrationality of one contest? I find it worrisome such “obvious wrongs” glide under the critical eye of the public so easily. As I said before you can’t miss seeing the obvious wrongs if you imbue the situation with obvious wrongs.

    All the world was “an American” after the 9-11 tragedy… Yet the children they bore don’t constitute legally as US citizens no matter how much they “feel”. That’s an exaggerated worse case scenario for people who want this “no borders” “no clear cut definition” of what it means to be American. People seem to be fighting for this free-form definition, criticizing the contests encapsulation of only the contiguous United States of America. Doing so causes it to become “unfair” as to what constitutes American born. Is it unfair? Does this show a disregard to others as to how we frame the idea of American born baby? I don’t think so. Should Toys’R'Us have also listed every US embassy and every US military base, which is legally US soil in practically every country in the world? Would it be right for a baby born on a Korean military base in South Korea in the New Year a day ahead of the US to win that distinction? Would US based Americans cry foul? Or Perhaps US citizens in Germany would cry foul because they are a few hours behind Korea in reaching the New Year but “unfairly” a few hours ahead of native US citizens. At what point do you put a rational limit to all that you can speculate? Many Asian advocates were morally offended by this controversy, but they’ve yet to offer a rational alternative. I don’t challenge how they feel about it, be outraged, I’m just saying legally that Toys’R'Us did nothing wrong and in the end did right for all three babies with no legally compelling reason apart from saving them from a public relations nightmare. It’s nice to see Asian Americans win fights, but for me this wasn’t a compelling fight. We win (I think) on this but lose the issues that we ought to win *cough* rosie.

    Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 7:13 pm ¶

14. Lyonside wrote:

    Ren: I agree with pretty much your points, and I just think the whole thing should have been clearer. I enter contests and rebates, etc. often enough to know that the legalese is horrible for native speakers (and even some lawyers I know).

    Bottom line, though: it’s a buyer-beware market, and it’s a private company. They can, pretty much, do as they wish.

    Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 9:11 pm ¶

15. Rob wrote:

    I also think the fact that since Toys R Us just opened their first store in China a few years ago, they were deathly afraid of this scenero being reporting in ethnic Chinese media which it did.

    I guess “losing” $25000 was a much better prospect than the possibility of losing millions in sales. I, for one, am glad that companies will do whatever they can to cater to the Asian market and it’s finally showing. Too bad it’s not dircted at the Asian American community for now but it’ll change.

    Screw what’s “fair.”

    Posted 12 Jan 2007 at 11:28 am ¶

16. kim wrote:

    Lyn:

    ” …have been thinking a lot about this because I am planning on moving to Spain illegally in the next year…”

    That’s almost funny, guess you’re serious though. Hope that works out for you.

    The child can’t claim anything, let alone say its own name. So, being that the parents are here illegally, wouldn’t they want to “lay low”, rather than rallying the Asian/American population around their “cause”? ‘ ”

    One would think so, Lyn, but go figure. ‘Toys’ folded, maybe due to some governmental pressure angle. The next time some American is arrested there, and held in the gulag, or maybe the next time a dissident student or reporter is haunted and persecuted for some democratic ideal in which they believe, the Toys’ reps will step in and say, ‘Remember that little issue of the the New Year prize money and the illegals we could have summarily deported?’

    Posted 12 Jan 2007 at 1:46 pm ¶

17. Lyn wrote:

    Kim –

    ” …have been thinking a lot about this because I am planning on moving to Spain illegally in the next year…”

    That’s almost funny, guess you’re serious though. Hope that works out for you.

    ***
    What’s with the hostility? you’re a little too hostile and sarcastic for my taste. there are parallels to me moving abroad, because just like undocumented immigrants here, I am leaving to pursue a dream of
    mine. And I am going for the hope that I’ll make it.

    As a black woman, I at times felt the pure disdain that is felt for the African and Dominican immigrants (many illegal), that are living there, because I look like I could be one of those people. So yes, every time I am followed around a store or propositioned on the street by old Spanish men because they think every brown woman is a hooker, I will know what it feels like to be an immigrant and an other. Only when they hear my accent do they think I might / maybe be “worth” something.

    p.s. the rest of your post was just incoherent, couldn’t understand it. sorry!

    Posted 12 Jan 2007 at 7:49 pm ¶

18. kim wrote:

    What hostility?

    Woman?!?

    ‘Hope. That. Works. Out. For. You.’

    Nothing hostile there.

    That’s almost funny (but not because you are probably serious). It was ALMOST funny, considering the wording, and the very public, yet surreptitious nature of the disclosure.

    The old Spanish don’t think I’m a hooker, they think I’m one of them and don’t want to admit I am, and then when they launch into a full-fledged statement or inquisition of me, and I respond, IN SPANISH, with my (according to them) near-perfect inflection, it is hard to believe that I am not one of them.

    Incoherent post? Who are you?

    I’m not gonna go off, ’cause I’m here for the conversation, so if you want to say something else, feel free. I would ask that you re-read the last part of my prior comment, however, for the multinational corporation as government entity humor angle.

    Posted 12 Jan 2007 at 8:51 pm ¶

19. Lyn wrote:

    okkk…i’ll just leave this one alone. i apologize if i have misunderstood you. Unfortunately, to me your tone continues to come off as sarcastic and condescending. either way, onward and upward, and happy mlk jr. day.

    Posted 13 Jan 2007 at 3:28 am ¶