There’s no conspiracy here. THe facts of her birth and parentage are well known.
The legal question is, “What is a Naturally Born Citizen (NBC)?” and “Is Harris an NBC?”
This gets you into philosophy, because the political and judicial process, coupled with some 240 years of removal from the initial sentiment when the term was written, make the answer to the question legalistic, political, and philosophical.
In other words, a packed court will say Kamala is fine. The current court might say Kamala is fine. Logic, and historical analysis, and the intent of the Founders will likely say she is not.
Which approach is the “right” one here?
My take: She is not according to original intent. She is not philosophically in terms of making sure that unlike Obama, “She’s from around here” and working for the home team.
But, looking at it tacticly, I think she’ll get away with it. All that will matter is birthright citizenship going forward.
Was this raised in 1968 when George Romney (born in Mexico) was a serious candidate for the GOP nomination?
No, it was not.
You have done a fine job of setting out the issue; although arguably, philosophy and "240 years of removal" are not relevant.
If it is not then obvious, there is a question for the USSC as to whether the State Department's 1968-ish view of the 14th Ad can effectively amend Art 2. (Interestingly, there was relatively speaking perhaps as much active leftist, anti-MAGA anarchy in the streets in 1968 as there is today.)
Since the 14th does not address the issue at all, it should not take 9 competent jurists much time to decide the matter. Perhaps most helpful is the fact the Constitution carefully distinguishes between "Natural Born Citizen" and "Citizen" in the same sentence.