It's almost impossible to convey how wrong this is.

The ones doing the genetic research are trying to understand what is really the case. It doesn't matter what you look like or where you came from. If it matters, you're doing it wrong. (Anyway, with whole-genome SNP mapping and sequencing, nobody can impose any narrative anyway. Everyone's lost under a flood of data.)

Seriously. Even if you desperately wanted to impose some narrative, how could you get this supertree analysis to not simply show what the data actually shows: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29890?

The people who just want to know what is actually the case are still being fought furiously by the people who are clinging to their cultural narrative as transmitted via Europe. The fight is rather shockingly successful in some places, too--a huge fraction of people in the United States are creationists and believe in a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis. (Which is actually an origin story from the Fertile Crescent, most likely, but whatever--it was adopted by the Europeans.)

Everyone's origin stories were spectacularly wrong, once you get past what could be maintained reliably with oral (or written) tradition. There's no shame in indigenous peoples of the Americas from having gotten it as wrong as everyone else. It's really not obvious.

I don't see why you expect a migration story to have survived just because someone's great great great great great great great great [...500-2000 more times...] great great grandparents traveled for some dozens or hundreds of generations, and not all in the same direction, either. What would the point be of prioritizing those stories over more recent ones that might actually contain useful cultural or ecological knowledge?

Indigenous peoples all over the world have a great store of cultural knowledge that is often unfairly dismissed by outsiders--but it isn't the weird esoteric stuff that the outsiders sometimes care about, like trying to reconstruct the ancestry of all humans (and of all life).