Let me try this another way. The 14th in and of itself creates “NOTHING”. It merely protects the person's rights as citizens under A1 & A2 that the US Constitution provides for. Declaratory simply means as defined elsewhere thus go look there for the meaning elsewhere which we all know is found in A1S8C4 & A2S1C5. A1 & A2 hinge on “subject to the jurisdiction” which is citizenship jurisdiction via the oath requirement of A1S8C4 for all naturalized citizens. If it wasn't the binding phrase, it would have been stated differently or left out entirely. Born citizens are not required to take this oath because they never owed allegiance to any other nation however, naturalized citizens were thus they must take an oath renouncing such prior allegiances.
It might help you to do a study on the different forms of jurisdiction. One of the prominent SCOTUS cases on citizenship discusses the differences, it just escapes my mind at this time which one it is. But regardless, there is plenty of reference that can be found on the internet discussing the different kinds of jurisdiction and jurisdiction over citizenship is very limited in its scope. It is limited strictly to the political sector as only citizens are bound by the system politically while every breathing body is bound to the laws of public peace & discord whether they be local, state or federal.
Thus the reason the courts use the ruse to say they can not rule because it is a political question. It may be that, but the Constitution also makes it a valid Constitutional question of citizenship and in all cases, the Constitution aspect is to trump any political aspect that may be attached to the case.
Perhaps @RASUL V. BUSH (03-334) 542 U.S. 466 (2004)
I like playing this game with you.