I thought Elon Musk was South African

He's actually a citizen of SA, the US and (I just learned) Canada :)

It's highly unlikely he has chosen to retain his South African citizenship.

Sometimes it's an immutable property. E.g. I'm a UK citizen whether I want to be or not.

Is there some reason to do this other than ideological protest?

For US citizens there is the global taxation rules. Is there something like that for UK citizens?

[delayed]

To the sibling comment: It's in case you wish to acquire citizenship in another country that does not recognise dual citizenship.

I.e. that [new] country will not allow you to become a citizen of it unless you renounce your original one.

What that might actually mean practically, or if you can un-renounce it later, I don't know. [Edit]: Turns out, according to that page, yes, you can do that with some kind of bureaucratic shuffle. Daft - but sometimes these things are.

You've had another reply which describes the process to renounce your British citizenship, I'm wondering if you just weren't aware of that, or is there something else backing up your assertion?

South African citizenship can be renounced. https://dirco.gov.za/berne/renunciation-of-south-african-cit...

As for why someone might do it, some do it to ensure they're not at any risk of extra-territorial application of South African laws, especially tax laws.

Why would he bother? It's not something that expires.

Until a recent Constitutional Court decision, it was an automatic loss of South African citizenship if you naturalised in another country without specifically requesting retention. After that ruling, the process is no longer automatic, but a number of people chose to renounce it regardless so as to avoid any potential impact of extra-territorial application of, for instance, tax law. [0]

Members of Parliament have asked South Africa's government whether Musk is still a South African citizen, but that information is protected by South Africa's privacy laws. So we won't ever know for certain unless he reveals it. [1]

[0] https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/202...

[1] https://pmg.org.za/committee-question/28275/

He is literally a SA citizen. You can easily look this up.

Provide a source, please.

The only official response on this has been to refuse to provide information either way based on South Africa's privacy laws. [0]

[0] https://pmg.org.za/committee-question/28275/

According to this, the law "mandates ICASA to regulate historically disadvantaged groups’ equity requirement at no less than 30%", rather than just saying "South Africans": https://www.parliament.gov.za/press-releases/media-statement...

(I would like to link to the actual law, but the URL ChatGPT gave me doesn't load and I don't know if that's because ChatGPT's wrong or the South African government's website is having problems).

It has to be a “historically disadvantaged group” which the legislation defines to be a variety of groups including women. It’s just more anti-white male racism from South Africa.

> South Africa has laws that require companies operating in South Africa have least at least 30% of the company owned by locals

Wow, that's crazy. They have no Google either?

There is Google and all the other online media companies. Now sure how Google has handled it, perhaps setting up a subsidiary. I think one of the issues with Starlink is that it has physical hardware and will compete with mobile providers and ISPs. It is very complicated.

This is the answer. In order to operate in the country you have to set up a local company and that will have the share required by law.

In SA specifically they're not affected by the 30% rule as they sell digital services.

So then is it just that Starlink needed an operating subsidiary with some local ownership to handle the ground stations there? Seems less onerous than how the US handled TikTok or the Chinese 5G hardware stuff.

Countries are often sensitive about their communication infrastructure.

Yes, or to partner with an existing ISP.

Amazon Leo, for instance, is partnering with Herotel. [0]

[0] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/amazon-leo/amazon-leo-south...

I think in practice this isn’t great. You get a bunch of little companies which represent foreign firms employing a few connected people. Maybe a few sales people that take orders. The net impact a few people get cushy jobs and the customers get more expensive and worse service.

As a consequence, South Africa has a flowering space industry and their own satellite internet network, deployed by their own space shuttles. Turns out that when you give the right incentives and protect your local businesses, they have no problem competing with predatory international firms.

You're being sarcastic, but South Africa does indeed have a thriving space industry for its size. Not only in terms of satellite components, but entire buses and satellites, which has included building satellites for Saudi Arabia.

However, the purpose of the BBBEE local ownership requirement for companies like Starlink is to protect and develop the local telecommunications sector, not the space sector.

https://www.wesgro.co.za/invest/sector-brochures/space-econo...

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/science/637482-billionaire-ho...

https://maxpolyakov.com/africa-in-space-part-1-south-africa-...

https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/south-africa...

https://spaceinafrica.com/2026/08/11/the-quiet-giant-of-glob...

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/saudisat-3.htm

Will the HN frustrated billionaires-in-making ever get tired of twerking for Elon?

[delayed]

Many countries are trying to protect the jobs in their telecoms sector. I can imagine the revenue impact it'll have on the mobile network operatrs if a lot of their high value customers migrate to starlink.

Which could be 30% of the local partner or subsidiary, which is the approach taken by all other multinationals operating in the country or in other countries with local ownership requirements. Amazon for instance is partnering with one of the local ISPs for Amazon Leo.

While there is much to criticise in South Africa's implementation of racial redress laws, at least some part of the Starlink issues in SA are Musk's insistence on turning it into a crusade because of his broader white-nationalist hatred of South Africa's black government.

But that requires revenue sharing with a local subsidiary. The 30% HDG owner wants its cut.

Musk did offer to give 5000 schools free Internet. Cynical me thinks that the connected parties who tend to profit from the local ownership laws wouldn't benefit from the schools getting free Internet.

Even then I still think I'd rather see the money flow shared. The less funnels that go to a few people, the better for all of us.

Given Musk's tendency to overpromise and his weak adherence to certain past promises, why should that be the sole determinant? Especially if there are other concerns that remain unaddressed, including becoming overly-dependent on something that Musk appears to personally control.

For what it's worth I think telecommunications companies like Starlink should be given the option of making an equivalent equity investment rather than giving away an ownership stake, as is allowed in other sectors. And the overall policy is being reviewed with an eye to possibly making that an option which I see as a good thing: https://www.bee.co.za/post/ict-sector-bee-code-under-the-mic...

But all telecommunications companies should be able to operate on a level policy playing field. Musk right now is trying to use his privileged access to the White House to apply intense economic and political pressure on South Africa in order to receive special treatment for Starlink compared to its competitors. I'm certainly not a fan of that.

> For what it's worth I think telecommunications companies like Starlink should be given the option of making an equivalent equity investment rather than giving away an ownership stake

I think this is what Musk wants but isn't getting.

The offer for free internet to the schools is an interesting one. Given the large size of South Africa fibre is never going to reach most places outside of major urban centres anytime soon. This poses an interesting considering for the rural child who stands to benefit from Starlink. My parents use Starlink and I don't care for Musk's politics. It is the best and only solution where they are located. Perhaps these rural kids in SA should be given Starlink too. No one is ever going to solve the politics in totality. There will always be a challenge.

It's not. It's applying a standard affirmative action and local ownership policy to all telecoms companies.

As I said, there's much to be debated about the South African government's implementation of racial redress policies, but that the social and economic impacts of Apartheid still linger so sharply strongly implies that some level of redress policy remains necessary.

Affirmative action is, by definition, discrimination.

As an American, this sucks. You can open and run a 100% foreign owned business in the USA. That’s great for consumers and the economy in general. China is the worst, I can’t sell a video game in China without a local partner or buy a Chinese company. They can sell any game here and buy any game company here. And they do. I know there are lots of exceptions to this, maybe the worst is cars.

People could complain, well you can do that because you’re the biggest market. We need to protect local businesses. But the USA can go protectionist too. We’re all going to end up paying the protectionist tax.

> As an American, this sucks. You can open and run a 100% foreign owned business in the USA. China is the worst

Look at TikTok, DJI etc. It's not that simple. Also the reason US companies are in China is because it is worth it for them, trust me.

You also seem to be forgetting the tech/software dominance the US has around the world.

But in principle I agree with you, this should of course include the US closing its bases outside of its own territory. Why? Because if you want to have bases on someone's territory so that you can protect your economic interests you have to offer something of value in return. If not, why should you have the right to stay?

How many US military bases are in South Africa or China?

China is the only real growth market for American companies anyomre, so the relationship with China is very, very valuable to American businesses.

As for SA, they're trying to kickstart their own industry as a relatively poor country, same as India. Guess what? The US was extremely protectionist when it was building its own industry.

Most of what you wrote is blatantly false, though in your case if you're a US citizen then it can be chalked up to unintentional ignorance (since you did not need to go through the regulatory hurdles a non-US citizen would) . You can open and run a 100% foreign owned business in China just like in the US, and you can buy a Chinese company just as easily as you can buy a US company (going through the same regulatory hurdles and mechanisms in both countries). Both countries heavily scrutinize foreign ownership of sensitive industries, but are more lax for nonsensitive ones.

The example about the cars is also outright false, the Tesla Shanghai Gigafactory for example is 100% foreign owned.

The only true statement you made was that you can't sell video games in China without a local publisher. Even so, I doubt the U.S. allowing foreign citizens to sell games without a local partner is the sole basis for your "We need to protect local businesses with protectionism!" argument.

> You can open and run a 100% foreign owned business in China just like in the US

not quite. it depends on the industry. there are certain industries -- telecom being one of them -- where a JV is required

also, your company is not a regular company, but in a special category and subject to other restrictions that a Chinese-owned or JV isn't subject to

it's easiest in manufacturing especially if you have a company that is basically manufacturing for export

it used to be very difficult, but it's gotten easier in recent years; but it's very different than having a business in the US that is foreign owned

I think especially after Ukraine I definitely wouldn’t want a large amount of critical infrastructure relying on a network you have no control over. The argument might be that it’s better to have something rather than nothing.

SpaceX is pushing for a global satellite-based mobile broadband and telecommunications network. People are bullish on it but I think they miss the point that you raise: SpaceX will still need to comply with local laws in every country they offer the service. Sure they won't need to build physical towers but legal compliance remains.

That means even if you're roaming SpaceX will need to comply. As such, the service won't really be useful unless they comply with the legal regimes in likely 100+ countries. That's a big issue. Not unsolvable but still big.

As others have said, subsidiary companies. Perfectly normal, and SpaceX is certainly big enough to do so... if they're willing. I mean, the whole "move fast and break things" approach may lead to viewing regulations (especially other countries' regulations) as things you just ignore until they prove that you can't.

And, let's say that I'm a wanna-be SpaceX user in Namibia. I drive over the border to, say, Botswana. I buy a receiver. I drive back into Namibia. I may be illegal, but is SpaceX breaking the law? Even if they are, what can Namibia do to SpaceX about it? They can't do much, precisely because SpaceX has no business presence in Namibia.

[delayed]

Yes, we've travelled to both South Africa and Angola earlier this year and run into this situation.