There is a gap or perhaps more of a blind spot in legal theory regarding how to explain the relationship between socially constructed identities and non-socially constructed biological vulnerabilities in the meeting with the law. This has always been the methodological challenge of child rights. The Complex Intersectionality of the child as both a social construction and at the same time, it is an undisputable truth that an infant or a small child is vulnerable due to its biological development regardless of its social construction. The focus of this text is on the vulnerability of the child when it comes to adoption and its parallel to the socially constructed understanding of the migrant. There is a complex coexistence between populist anti-migration positions, socially constructed identities of childhood, race and gender, combined with biological vulnerabilities, all channeled through the principle of the child’s best interest, and a tension of the Western idea of the East when it comes to international adoption. The large wave of adoptions and the framing of the adoption as being an act of goodness and care from altruistic childless westerners in the desire to save unloved children in Korea relies on several socially constructed imaginaries about the East and the West, but at its core what makes these socially constructed concepts take hold is a real biological vulnerability. A small child is completely dependent on adults’ love and care for its survival.