Should The US Annex Northern Mexico or Be Honest With Itself?

It seems as though it is time to simply annex northern Mexico and redraw a more easily defendable border with our southern neighbor. By my rough estimate we would incorporate four new states and nearly 30 million people but at least we could move off the current malaise of politicization of both border security and what to do with the roughly 10 million people who have entered the country illegally.
Let the politicians fight for the new, formerly Mexican, voters the old fashioned way. The progressives could offer cradle-to-grave programs for our newest victims of misfortune and the conservatives could offer sink-or-swim individual liberty. Which system would these relatively poor but socially conservative new citizens choose for themselves? It is indeed hard to tell.
As farfetched as the above idea might sound, it may be easier than building a political consensus to solving what really ails our nation.

Whether we agree on the solution or not, there are two issues that need to be resolved at a federal level that we are willing to discuss:
1) What do we do about securing the US-Mexico border?
2) What do we do about the 10 million people (or so) who have entered the country illegally?
There is far more agreement on securing the border than what to do with the people who are already here. These are tough issues but not the toughest ones facing the nation. Those are rather the issues that we are unwilling to discuss openly and honestly.
The new law in Arizona is definitely a reactionary law, but it is nearly identical to existing federal law, so what is the real source of the angst being expressed from many different corners?
Anyone living in or spending time in southern Arizona knows that the operations of Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers have spilled over the border with automatic weapons, kidnappings and murder. We also know of the additional burdens placed upon hospitals and schools by people who have entered the country illegally. Many people see the new Arizona law as a reasonable reaction but others see it as an unfair and racist action.
Why such angst? There are two fundamental beliefs underlying the angst. They are also issues that we are reluctant to honestly and openly discuss:
1) A belief that the wealth and prosperity of the US has come at the expense of the rest of the world -and-the US has an obligation to the poor and oppressed people of the world.
2) Law enforcement is inherently racist regardless of the law itself.
* Postulate 2A) Local law enforcement is inherently more racist than federal law enforcement.
Many of the groups and local governments that have assisted people who illegally crossed the border are motivated by the belief that we owe these people either humanitarian assistance or compensatory assistance. The most troubling aspects of this movement, is not the humanitarian efforts, but rather local politicians who feel free to defy laws they disagree with when it comes to immigration while attempting to enforce other laws such lawn watering and the consumption of poly-saturated fats. This creates cynicism in law abiding citizens, chaos for law enforcement and equal justice for none.
I contend that the real unstated issue behind most of the Arizona law angst in this nation comes from a belief that law enforcement is inherently racist -and- that law officers are either outright racists or biased with regards to race. The belief, by some, that the police and their actions are always biased and capricious is the core unspoken and undermining issue that the nation needs to face. It is not solely an Arizona problem.
Indeed the efforts to recast the local enforcement of existing federal law as Jim Crow or Nazi Germany only work when the focus is kept upon police action and one’s imagination is kept upon the old video images of Birmingham, Alabama Police Commissioner Bull Connor spraying peaceful civil rights marchers with a fire hose and then attacking them with police dogs –or- images of the Gestapo coming into homes and dragging away victims into the night.
I would not pretend that there are no racist or biased police officers, but enforcement of the law is required in a civil society and even more so in a democracy. America in 2010, including Arizona, is nothing like 1950s Alabama or 1930s Germany and to infer so is to purposely distort emotions and diminish the suffering of blacks in the segregated South and Jews in Nazi Germany.
I am not optimistic with regards to this issue as I find very few politicians willing to speak the truth or take a principled stand; they are mostly posturing themselves for political expediency based upon their perceived constituency. Two New York politicians have been outspoken on Arizona's new law.
I am more bothered by the hypocrite, Republican NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who sees nothing wrong with enforcing all kinds of social policy laws that infringe upon people's ability to choose for themselves in NYC, but has a problem with Arizonians trying to curtail the much more severe problems that they face on a daily basis. While he sees NYC law enforcement as fair and just, he unfortunately sees Arizona law enforcement as racist. At least the ambulance-chasing Democrat, Al Sharpton is an equal opportunity accuser and makes charges of racism in law enforcement across all regions of the country.

We need national leadership on both immigration reform and the fair and consistent enforcement of the law. I see very little of it. How can we provide stimulus funding to keep more local police on the job on one hand and then allow local police to be characterized as biased and racist on the other hand?
How you feel about the Arizona law is more driven by how you perceive police and their biases than it is based upon the law itself or the issues that led to the law and that is a problem.