communities continues to vary, even though the areas where they remained in the end for reception, detention or refugee accommodation are as a rule outside the urban fabric, and usually at a fairly large distance from residential areas. A stable reference point in the relationship of the thirdcountry nationals with the local community and the State was their intention to leave Greece and the corresponding willingness of the local community and the State to informally facilitate them, with actions or omissions, to realise this exact intention. On this basis, the reaction of the local communities to the arrival of large groups of foreigners, initially on the Greek islands close to the Turkish coasts of the Aegean, and then on the mainland, was not expressed at all places and all times in the same way. The key factors that influenced the situation were the following: • the (estimated) time of the stay of the third-country nationals; • the type/adequacy of facilities and the degree of responsiveness of the services; • the nationality and family status of the third-country nationals; • the public debate (Press, local authorities, church, etc.); • the local economy and society (e.g. university/students, tourism/agricultural production etc.). For example, in the summer of 2015, thousands of Syrians who were arriving in Lesvos, not only did not encounter any problems, but were actually helped by the local community, who were aware that, despite the inadequate facilities (sometimes due to those inadequacies), the refugees would be forwarded within 1-3 days by boat to the mainland. On the other side, in early 2016, Pakistanis arriving to Kos were facing serious reactions by groups of citizens, who together with the municipal authority were requesting that all thirdcountry nationals were immediately removed from the island. 4.2. Being “trapped” The closing of the informal Balkan and facing Route, in early 2016, had as a inefficiencies first consequence the creation of new unofficial camps and the growth of old ones (e.g. Eidomeni, Elliniko, Piraeus port, etc.). This in turn was considered by a large part of the Press to confirm the grimmest omens on thousands of third-country nationals being “trapped” in Greece, and on the creation of an unclear, but frequently called “uncontrolled situation”, which posed “serious risks” for the security, health, properties, etc., of the permanent residents. The bombardment of the public opinion with images of deprivation from the unofficial accommodation sites, the emphatic publication of incidents of violence or delinquency in general and the frequent, in part of the Press, construction of a peculiar social-moral panic, had a decisive influence on the public debate of local authorities and agencies. On the one hand, it appeared to be justifying those who from the start exerted pressure on the central government, investing in fear and promoting stereotypes, and on the other hand discouraged those who had chosen a more dispassionate view of the phenomenon within the context of the rule of law. In the months that followed, despite the sudden drop in the number of the people who crossed the Aegean with boats and the corresponding decrease of the number of those being forwarded to the mainland, this largely self-referential negative climate appeared to be expanding even to areas which had stayed away from such problems up to that time, whether thanks to active local solidarity initiatives, or due to the creation of a new economic activity centered on the needs of the new arrivals. A series of shortcomings, shortages, omissions and fragmented actions of the central administration did not help to create a potentially better relationship between the local community and the new arrivals. For example, the creation - initially on a temporary basis and then with indefinite duration - of informal accommodation facilities for third-country nationals in urban communal spaces, such as squares, parks and archaeological monuments, the negligence in the registration of the individuals arriving by boat on the islands over a period of many months, the absence in the beginning and then the inadequacy of official accommodation facilities, the initially inadequate provision of food and medical and pharmaceutical care, the confusion with regard to the responsibilities, competences and procedures due to the frequent changes in the legal framework, the confusion regarding the closed (detention) or open nature of the facilities and, finally, making promises that were not kept, fuelled the feeling of an inadequate presence, if not complete absence, of the State and sometimes caused acute reactions. 69