Wikipedia has a list of the oldest cities in the Americas, here. As you can see, the vast majority are in Central and Latin America - particularly Mexico, Peru, as well as Guatemala and Colombia.
Yet the explanation for how humans came to settle the Americas is that humans crossed over the Beringian land bridge from Asia to the American continent, steadily moving south from there, particularly down the west coast of Canada and the United States.
And I'm curious about the explanation for this. Because it seems to me that humans have been in North America much longer than they were in Central/Latin America, as they must have passed through North America to reach it. So you would surely expect the oldest settlements we find to be from North America - Canada, the United States.
There are a number of factors at play.
Latin America is very constricted geologically. Mexico down through Chile is a very very small geographic area on the slopes of the American Cordillera. The US (and Northern Mexico) has significantly more open space, which mean it is correspondingly more difficult to predict how pre-clovis people might have moved across the landscape and perform educated searches.
Standard shovel test procedure cannot identify pre-clovis sites. It doesn't dig deep enough. Pre-clovis sites are discovered accidentally during other activities.
The population density of pre-clovis people is miniscule. Even people that have been historically documented often don't appear in the archaeological record, simply because we can't identify whatever traces they may have left. For illiterate people with no known rock art and possibly one lithics technology in North America (the miller complex), we don't have the information to identify any pre-clovis artifacts we find out of context. By comparison a lithics expert could easily identify a clovis point, even if it was sitting on a shelf in your garage.
Much of the Northern regions were entirely covered by glaciers that have since receded. There can be no Ötzi situation, because the ice that could have preserved anything is long gone.
This is all assuming most pre-clovis peoples migrated overland. There are some very good arguments to be made for the coastal migration hypothesis, and we would not expect coastal people to leave large archaeological traces. Most of what we could expect might have been confused by activities of later coastal people (e.g. shell middens) or undiscovered because of how small the population was.
These aren't the only reasons we might not have found pre-clovis sites in North America, but they're some of the large ones. In general, we simply don't know what we're looking for and the vast majority of modern archaeology has no ability to detect and identify it.
You could also ask why the oldest cities are in the Middle East and not Africa, despite modern humans being in Africa first. This is because humans don't have a natural tendency to urbanization. Urbanization has its own reasons to come to being. It doesn't happen automatically after humans have been living in an area for a number of years.