My take on the "native american" notions and tales is that they are largely romantic in nature and have been for a while now, given that we now know about truly deplorable behaviors among some earlier "tribes" or groups of peoples in the Southwest, particularly, of North America, and, based upon realities from Colonial Americas -- specifically, Sir Francis Drake's first colonializations -- the "native americans" literally absconded with the English and Portugese who tried to settle in areas in the then Virginia Company area (which extended from what we now call the State of Maine down to now Florida, along mostly the Eastern Coastal areas).
AND, it's proven by DNA that the "native americans" in the Northern areas (all the way down to but not including the area where the Hopi lived, and those peoples themselves) had Northern Asian and Northern European DNA.
Meaning, the "white man" is an ancestor of "native americans," proven by migration routes and actual DNA migration among human populations.
My main difficulty from the present tense in those who try to interject the "native american" argument or counter argument (depending upon the perspective) to the present day immigration problems is that it's an entirely inaccurate set of references in general (refusal by most to include the "white man" in the issue as to who native americans are/were, and some sense of proprietary ownership of North -- even South -- America by these earlier migrations of peoples, which is the predominant militant outcry by gangs from Central America today as to their sense of [false] "ownership" and/or entitlement to be present in the United States today without sanction of legality or other permissions).
And, thus, it's not an argument but an irrational tangent, to try to rely on these early migration issues as to priorities and propriety of current-day citizenship and residency in the U.S.
I've written this before on FR but I'll add it again here just to include this information: the EARLIEST KNOWN human population of South America and North America is by Australian Aborigines in the very southermost part of South America. But the Norse peoples are suspected to have been here simultaneously in the North.
Thus, combined with the now known/proven presence of Northern European DNA in those first immigrants that arrived here from Northern Asia, our most current science about human populations in BOTH North AND South America is: the "white man" and Australian Aborigines were here first.
Everyone of Spanish and Asian ancestry (of Asian ancestry are the Hopi and every group southward after the initial populations by the Aborigines in the very far South) ARRIVED LATER.
End of story. As in, there is no accuracy in the colloquial claim that "we (they) were here first" by Asians and the later arriving Spanish immigrants to the Americas who then intermingled with the earlier mostly Southern Asian-ancestral peoples, by whom the Central Americas and most of South America were later populated.
Good luck getting those that spout "we were here first" to wrap their minds around the truth you have stated.
They only know it is better here than where they are and will tell themselves whatever lies necessary to justify their actions.