In this chapter, I take up his call to temporalize spatial categories and o er three reformulations and realignments that enable a more nuanced spatio-temporal analysis to address some conundrums of methodological nationalism with respect to the study of migration. First, drawing on Rogers Brubaker’s (1996) discussion of what he calls “developmentalist” and “eventful” formations of nationhood, I suggest that the “nationalization” of migration is best grasped as a medley of “eventful” formations of nationhood. Such a perspective, I argue, is most appropriate to apprehending the scattered, uneven temporality of the suture between nationness and migration. Second, to index a world di erent from one composed of and dominated by nation-states, I deploy the formulation of the empire-state. In drawing attention to imperial territorial, economic, state, social and subjective formations, the spatial notion of the empire-state goes some way in historicizing the national and in undoing the anachronistic logic that attends the nomenclature of the transnational. It also aids in ensuring that colonial formations are not remaindered out of our analyses of the making of the world or accorded the status of derivative formations as the sites of the di usion of putative originals crafted elsewhere. Finally, just as the critique of methodological nationalism has entailed that rather than produce national histories, we historicize the national, I suggest that rather than produce transnational histories, we historicize the transnational. Whereas the former can take the form of simply cataloguing connections across the globe, the latter has the benefi t of foregrounding how such connections are understood, regulated and experienced anew, as mediated by a mutating nation form.