A/HRC/32/50 38. Xenophobia manifests itself in multiple forms that can be characterized according to the severity, scale, and modality of expression. At its most severe, xenophobia can lead to the expulsion or eradication of population groups. In such instances, State or private actors have targeted a population group — usually citizens — with overt violence or threats. These occurrences have sometimes taken the form of genocide, and although not all forms of genocide are xenophobic, xenophobia often shares with genocide a desire to confirm ethnic supremacy by eradicating those that it considers as outsiders. At the other end of the spectrum — the most micro and informal level — one finds discrimination that can range from bullying to mild hate speech premised on a person’s language, appearance or origins, which may even happen in the school playground. Between the two extremes, there is a range of practices, inter alia: political scapegoating, administrative exclusion, selective and restrictive immigration policies, ethnicized competition and conflict, targeted gang violence, police harassment and profiling, stereotyping in the State-owned media and the privately owned media and on social networks, and exclusive selection criteria for schools or neighbourhood associations. 39. The forms of discrimination and the causes of discrimination against perceived outsiders, as well as the language used against them, vary considerably and are often contextually conditioned and site-specific. However, a number of global trends can be observed. Perhaps most notable among these has been political and popular language and policy that codes certain groups or subgroups (whether citizens or immigrants) as threats to the security of the State. These groups are often accused of undermining the stability of the State. 40. Various studies provide explanations for and causes of xenophobic attitudes and practices. These arguments should be considered as complementary rather than competitive perspectives. Some have rooted discrimination and bias in human psychology, asserting that people are naturally and inherently scared of those they perceive to be different, or outsiders, even when there is no demonstrable threat. Distrust and discrimination may well be natural human characteristics, however the targets of such bias are not predetermined; instead, ignorance, a lack of education and knowledge about migrants and/or foreigners, or socialization itself may contribute to xenophobic attitudes and expressions. Other studies have pointed out that in times of economic, political or social instability, people often experience a “deficit of belonging”, which leads to a tendency to draw boundaries as a way of achieving individual or collective security. 41. The divisions triggered by the creation of modern political systems have also been identified as a possible cause of xenophobia. This perspective acknowledges the fact that nation States often legitimize ideals of cultural homogeneity in ways that make others — particularly those deemed unassimilable — inherently threatening. This is evident in hostile populist, nationalist political discourse and policies based on the exclusion, rejection and expulsion of “outsiders” including minority groups. 42. More nuanced political perspectives recognize the role played by bias entrepreneurs in achieving mobilization on discriminatory grounds. These may include individuals or groups within or outside government, aspirants for office or incumbents, members of civil society, or those operating as gangs or as informal leaders elsewhere in the community. These “social entrepreneurs”, who often build on existing or manufactured moral, economic, security or political crises, scapegoat individuals belonging to a particular ethnicity, religion or nationality or to another axis of differentiation as being responsible for past, current or future threats. Over the past decade, this has been evidenced in practices and policies towards migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and minorities, who are being framed as posing a threat to jobs, to welfare and sometimes to cultural dominance. 12