If you’re going to win the game, you have to play it first
Posted
January 6, 2007 at
4:12 pm by
Jessica
UPDATE: The following decision to with-hold a $25,000 bond prize to the first baby born in 2007 because the mother is an illegal alien, has been reversed to thwart controversy and backlash. Even though they (TRU) probably did make the correct decision because they’ll probably get their asses sued off otherwise, I still think the knee-jerk reaction to with-hold the money sends a powerful message — don’t expect to come here and get everything handed to you for free just because you manage to squeeze a kid out. I hope the parents plan on becoming legal because if we actually pursued the laws on the books, they would be deported. That is the law, not my opinion. How many legal Americans could blantently break the law in front of the entire world everyday and not be prosecuted for it?
———————————————————-
Toys ‘R Us is no stranger to controversy. I kind of like it too. They’re not about to give into whiny cry babies who’s sole purpose in life to to complain about how unfair life is and how they’re entitled to something that they didn’t get. In the face of illegal immigration, they’re equal opportunity dissenters from the political powers that be — out to prove that it doesn’t matter what country you’re from, if you’re in the U.S. illegally — you aren’t entitled to squat. Go TRU!:
Associated Press
Toys ‘R’ Us Baby Contest Sparks FussToys “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 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. Read the rest…
And, of course, people are pissed:
Some Chinese-American advocates say the company’s decision smacks of second-class citizenship.
Yeah, because illegal aliens should be treated like U.S. citizens even though they’re not. Just because you’re not something, doesn’t mean you aren’t - wah, wah, wah. Bitch, bitch, bitch, moan, moan, moan. Boo fuckin’ who.
Given, I don’t know what the legal ramifications are, all I know is that whole anchor baby policy is bullshit. It was never intended for people to come here, burden tax payers pockets and take away from their families in order to fund their children’s upbringing. I’m not talking about legal immigrants, I’m talking about the ones that come here and squeeze out a kid in order to get their illegal asse’s kid a free ride.
Like I said, I don’t know if what they did was legal and if it isn’t, let it play out in court, but I like the message it sends.
Tags: Chinese-American, contest, first-baby-in-2007, News-&-Politics, savings-bond-prize, toys-r-us |
11 Responses to “If you’re going to win the game, you have to play it first”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Eric Johnson said:
January 7, 2007 @ 10:01 am
What Jessica said is bullshit! According to the law, whoever were born in the US are legal US citizen. So there is no illegal claims for the baby.
That’s why finally the company gave the money to the babay!
Jerssica is a racist!
2. Jessica said:
January 7, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Note, I said ILLEGAL alien, it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. I would say the same thing if the ILLEGAL alien were Irish.
Calling me a racist is just a cop-out to a smart and thoughtful response.
3. Prescott said:
January 7, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Eric, since English seems to be your second language, I can understand your bias. I think the word you’re looking for is “xenophobe”, not “racist”. If you’re going to hurl insults around, it’s best to get them right.
4. Jill said:
January 7, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
The money, however, is for the baby. The baby is not an illegal alien. The baby is an Aemrican citizen, and if mom was deported, the baby wouldn’t even be on the deportation order!
5. Jessica said:
January 7, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Legally, yeah, you’re right, but it doesn’t mean it’s right, IMO.
6. Matthew Miller said:
January 9, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
[quote comment="56634"]
Legally, yeah, you’re right, but it doesn’t mean it’s right, IMO.[/quote]
In other words, while the baby is a perfectly legal American citizen, the status of her mother makes her a less “right” American?
In the first paragraph above, you say “That is the law, not my opinion” — but now, it turns out that it’s not the law at all, but rather your opinion after all.
You’re entitled to that opinion, but luckily the US Constitution says otherwise.
7. Prescott said:
January 9, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
An unborn baby cannot enter a sweepstakes. So the contest entrant was the mother, and the award goes to the mother, not the baby, despite how the prize would be used in the end. The rules clearly stated that the entrant had to be a legal U.S. resident (this is common language on almost any sweepstakes). She isn’t, so she loses. Why the indignation? I wonder if the same rallying cry would go out if the mother were Canadian.
A public relations gaffe? Certainly. Racist? Not even close.
8. Jessica said:
January 9, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Legally, yeah, you’re right, but it doesn’t mean it’s right, IMO.[/quote]
In the first paragraph above, you say “That is the law, not my opinion” — but now, it turns out that it’s not the law at all, but rather your opinion after all.[/quote]
Your are being grossly and deliberately dishonest here.
What I said was, “I hope the parents plan on becoming legal because if we actually pursued the laws on the books, they would be deported. That is the law, not my opinion.”
Why in the world do they call people that are here illegally, “ILLEGAL aliens”, Sherlock? Answer me that riddle!
9. Matthew Miller said:
January 9, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Jessica — you’re feeling defensive, and responding to that rather than my point. I’m not being “dishonest” (I mean, come on, it’s not like the original post isn’t *right up there*).
Rather, in the first part, you make a somewhat self-righteous sounding statement about how the law applies to the parents, nothing to do with opinion, but in the end, you’re not wanting to apply that same law to the girl, “IMO”. Her parents’ status isn’t her fault, and she’s a completely “first-class” American citizen.
And Prescott — although the particular story linked to doesn’t mention this, apparently the *hospital* entered the contest, not the mother. (The hospital also wins a prize in this.)
I think the classiest thing at this point would be for Toys R Us to give the prize money to both kids which they declared to be winners. It’s not like the $8000-or-so value of the savings bond is a lot of money to the company vs. the P.R. opportunity (which is what this contest is for in the first place).
10. Jessica said:
January 9, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
I did respond.
You? - no read.
11. Prescott said:
January 9, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
[quote comment="56926"]I think the classiest thing at this point would be for Toys R Us to give the prize money to both kids which they declared to be winners. It’s not like the $8000-or-so value of the savings bond is a lot of money to the company vs. the P.R. opportunity (which is what this contest is for in the first place).[/quote]
I already acknowledged that it was a boneheaded PR move by TRU, I simply think it’s rather ridiculous to think this had a racist or xenophobic motive behind it. Some suit in legal was following strict procedure and it turned into a media nightmare. Period.