1002 EPD: Society and Space 38(6) To carry this out the European Commission has allocated e506m ($541m) to the Asylum Migration Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF). When coupled with contributions from individual member states as well as private donations it is estimated that e751m ($803m) have been allocated for the management of life seekers in Greece, with the majority of this e751m used to ‘address the needs of at least 57,000 people stranded in Greece after March 2016’ (Howden and Fotiadis, 2017). Much of this money has been spent by the EU itself as well as by the Greek state and amongst humanitarian organisations in receipt of EU funds working in the hotspots and their satellite spaces such as Kara Tepe on Lesvos, used to house vulnerable people from the hotspot of Moria, or Souda on Chios that make up part of the spatially disaggregated network of the hotspot approach. Currently, the Greek Directorate of Reception and Social Integration at the Ministry of Interior is responsible for the longer-term reception of life seekers in the hotspots with the Greek army tasked with the construction, logistics and management of the spaces (ECRE, 2016: 36–37) as well as the provision of food which is sub-contracted to a private catering company (ECRE, 2016: 46). Other ‘services’ are provided by a range of humanitarian organisations in the hotspots themselves and within their satellite spaces that make up the hotspot machine. For example, I have documented the following in Moria on Lesvos: Save the Children providing activities for children as well as safe spaces for mothers and children; Praksis working with unaccompanied minors; Mercy Corps running classes and activities for both children and adults and Remar supplementing food supplies. In Moria’s satellite site of Kara Tepe on Lesvos: IRC providing WaSH facilities; Human Support Agency providing clothes, Samaritan’s Purse providing essential non-food items such as hygiene kits and Medecins du Monde and MSF providing medical care; Oxfam providing food distribution and ActionAid providing interpreters and working to support women as well as a host of other smaller, volunteer organisations providing supplementary relief efforts.7 The presence of these humanitarian actors assisting in the efficient management of the hotspots themselves and their satellite sites have also been documented by the European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ERCE) in its joint report with the Dutch, Italian and Greek Councils for Refugees and ProAsyl (ECRE, 2016). As such the hotspots and their attendant infrastructures including a number of satellite sites and infrastructures such as Kara Tepe on Lesvos and Souda on Chios are sites of humanitarian action where a range of acts of compassion towards life seekers are performed and subsumed into the hotspot approach, making such compassion itself governable. This rationalisation of compassion in the hotspots is the focus of the following discussion. The rationalisation of compassion through the hotspots It will be unsurprising to scholars of the refugee regime and its common spatialisation in camps, to argue that the complex systems that underpin, design and manage camps employ advanced liberal techniques (Lippert, 1999) for effective population management (Bulley, 2014). Such processes are part of the modern, liberal state’s rendering of compassion into an effective instrument for the management of disasters. Like camps, hotspots employ a range of techniques that aim to bring order to chaos, governing through and allowing for the concomitant presence of both care and control. The hotspot approach thus aims to effectively deploy compassion for the securing of life seekers. However, the hotspot approach also intervenes at the level of European society, working to mould the concerns of citizens into effective tools of governing and liberal order, focused on freedom of both rational