The Saami tribes have suffered terribly at the hands of the Norse Scandinavians and Finns for centuries because they have no "superior" claim to the land. For the most part, they've been forced off their territory, or Sápmi. If anything, they've been marginalized and forced to adapt to Norse and Finnish culture(s) to the point of losing their own cultural identity.
It's not a question of who arrived first in Scandinavia as it's "pretty slippery" to peg the arrival of the ethnic Saami, aka Sami, Suomi, Lappi (FWIW, Lappi a pejorative Norse term), as they didn't have a written (historic) culture, and were marginalized early on by the Norse Scandinavians. However, they do predate the Scandinavian period. Period.
Like the Euskaldunak (Basque), the Caucasians—the Vainakh/Kavkas and Ossetians (Georgian; also the kingdom of Pern—now that's an isolate group!), the Kvens (Sami-Finns, different than Finnish Finns), even the Samoyeds (sounds like Sami, doesn't it?—but they split off the linguistic family tree very early, like the Ainu—Altaic/Uralic); however, they are/were Uralic speakers, not Indo-European. (Uralic = Urals; generally includes many Siberian cultures.)
The western Uralic branch, Finno-Urgic (toss in the Magyarok—the Hungarians) are different peoples—in many cases, they carry different genetic markers—literally—predominance of RH - factor. And revisionist thinking claiming that it's merely an "ethno-linguistic distinction" is not going to change that bloody fact.
An interesting aside, during the Plague/Black Death, many Norse died, the Sea Saami peoples did not—though they were living side by side.
