Ergo, Kamala is an "anchor baby:" A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country when the child's birthplace is thought
to have been chosen for the specific purpose of improving the mother's......and/or other relatives'.....chances of securing eventual citizenship.
======================================
When did her parent become citizens?
Was her birth used in the parental citizenship quest?
How many of Kamala's relatives secured citizenship after her birth?
So, to respond to your questions:
“When did her parents become citizens?” - Doesn’t matter.
“Was her birth used in the parental citizenship quest?” - Doesn’t matter
How many of Kamala’s relatives secured citizenship after her birth?” - Doesn’t matter
Other questions that don’t matter- What was the weather like the day she was born (IN CALIFORNIA)? What was the Dow Jones at when she was born (IN CALIFORNIA)?
What does matter is that she was born in California and the US Constitution (14th Amendment), as affirmed by the Supreme Court (US vs. Wong Kim Ark) say that she is a citizen of the US.
As regards the whole natural born citizen language, the US Constitution is silent on what exactly this means. Without specific Constitutional language, we are left to try to ascertain the meaning. In the United States, the organization that has this responsibility is the court system. The courts have repeatedly addressed this issue (see Obama, Barack), not a single one found that the fact that he had a non-citizen parent made him ineligible to be president.
Given the history, I would think that this could be considered settled. Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen, by virtue of her birth in California, and is eligible to be the vice-president, and to be the president, if that becomes necessary. If you disagree, take that up with the Supreme Court, assuming they even deign to hear the case. Say hi to Orly Taitz when you see her.