For some reason, these concerns are being blown past. Why? Don't the democrats want to negotiate in good faith, after all?

"Good faith" negotiating doesn't usually mean "everything I want and exactly the way I want it, and nothing you want and no changes to how I want it." There's good reasons for these things.

We talked about the sunset provision - what ended up in the bill was a likely violation of international human rights law as it applies to refugees, so you definitely want to come back and revisit that in a few years. "Securing the border" doesn't expire in 3 years, but the parts where you're breaking your treaty commitments probably should have a least a fig leaf of being a temporary emergency measure rather than an abrogation of your commitment to human rights. Same with the trigger provisions. If you're going to deny basic human rights to migrants, you certainly want to give yourself some cover on why you're doing it.

The bailouts for blue cities are there because Abbott sent so many migrants to blue cities. So funds to mitigate the impacts of these migrants aren't just going to go into ruby red Texas any more. They'll also go to blue cities as well.

As for the "democrat friendly court in DC," can you explain what that particular point is about? Right now, all appeals of immigration court decisions already go to the Board of Immigration Appeals in DC. Are people being told that this is a new arrangement?