Wilson Proposes U.S. Version of Prop. 187 : Immigration: He urges Congress to enact similar measures. But lawmakers are likely to move cautiously.

Gov. Pete Wilson, fresh from his resounding reelection victory, proposed Friday that Congress adopt a federal version of California’s controversial Proposition 187, which would deny all benefits except emergency medical care to illegal immigrants.

In a confident address to the conservative Heritage Foundation, Wilson said that the new Congress should either fully reimburse states for the cost of education and medical services to illegal immigrants or seek to end the requirements that they provide such services at all.

“I don’t think it is proper for federal or state taxpayers to pay the costs of those services,” Wilson said, “so my preference is to end the services.”

At the same time, Wilson expressed support for a new program to import temporary “guest workers” from Mexico--an idea that traditionally has enjoyed strong support from California agricultural interests but in the past has been resisted by the kind of illegal immigration critics who worked with Wilson to pass the 187 initiative.

In his wide-ranging remarks, Wilson again denied interest in seeking the 1996 presidential nomination, said that Republicans should pass authority over welfare to the states rather than attempt to rewrite the program in Washington, urged Congress to pass the new world trade agreement later this month and sharply denounced the Mexican government’s criticism of Proposition 187.

“I think the Mexican government should really butt out of the internal affairs of the United States,” Wilson said.

As he arrived at the Heritage Foundation, Wilson was greeted by a noisy throng of anti-Proposition 187 protesters who carried signs accusing him of fomenting racism. “Pete Wilson: The George Wallace of The ‘90s,” read one placard.

“As Pete Wilson comes to Washington to step onto the national stage, we want the national Republican Party to know he comes with some serious baggage,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group that organized the demonstration.

Wilson said suggestions that the proposition is racist or anti-immigrant are “insulting to the people of California who voted for it.”

With his address, which drew a throng of reporters, Wilson clearly signaled that he intends to push the Proposition 187 message onto the national stage. He indicated that in addition to lobbying Congress he also will work with other states interested in passing similar laws. That effort promises to widen a rapidly sharpening fault line in conservative ranks.

Though most national Republican leaders supported the California measure, it drew intense fire from several conservative leaders--including former Cabinet secretaries Jack Kemp and William J. Bennett, leading GOP strategist William Kristol and representatives of several conservative think tanks including the Heritage Foundation--which condemned it as a “big brother” expansion of government power.

Bennett and Kemp have scheduled a news conference for next Monday with Linda Chavez, a former top civil rights official in the Ronald Reagan Administration, to push alternatives to the benefits cutoffs Wilson advocates.

Wilson did not specify exactly what a federal version of Proposition 187 would look like. But in his remarks he suggested that any federal action should be based on the measure’s provisions to cut off educational and non-emergency medical services to illegal immigrants. In California, Proposition 187 faces numerous legal hurdles, and most of its provisions have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge pending further review by the courts.

Congress may have only limited maneuvering room to affect such benefits, however. Illegal immigrants are already ineligible for federal welfare and food stamps. Congress has required states to provide emergency medical care to illegal immigrants, but Proposition 187 leaves this undisturbed. The measure cuts back on non-emergency services provided through state funds.

The California initiative also attempts to remove illegal immigrants from public schools. But any effort to expand that on a national basis would face the same hurdle now confronting Proposition 187: the 1982 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution requires states to educate illegal immigrants. Ultimately, the Supreme Court would have to approve any congressional effort to reverse that decision, experts say.

Wilson said that he has spoken with both incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and likely Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and that each indicated support for steps to reduce the cost to states of illegal immigrants. In comments to reporters after their meeting Thursday night, Gingrich said he believes that “the best response is to eliminate the mandates (to provide services) because the welfare magnet (is) drawing people into the United States.”

Despite Gingrich’s sympathetic comments, several Republican sources said Friday that Congress is likely to move cautiously before tackling the emotional issue of further limiting benefits to illegal immigrants.

Neither Senate nor House Republicans laid out positions on illegal immigration in the “contracts” they produced during the campaign. And last year, a House Republican task force on immigration chaired by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) did not endorse barring illegal immigrant children from public schools.

In an interview Friday, Smith, who is likely to chair the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, said that “the thrust of 187 is going to be seriously considered by Congress.” But he suggested that provoking a court challenge by denying educational benefits to children might prove too controversial for inclusion in any immigration package.

“Most of us are more interested in passing a bill than posturing and that means producing a bill that has bipartisan support in Congress,” Smith said. Any provision cutting off educational benefits for children, he said, “would make it difficult” to attract such broad support.

Wilson’s suggestion Friday that Congress consider a new guest-worker program is also likely to prove controversial. When Congress revised the immigration laws in 1986, Wilson, then a U.S. senator, pushed through the Senate a large guest-worker program with the strong support of California agribusiness, which wanted low-cost seasonal labor. But the House rejected the measure.

On Friday, while offering few specifics, Wilson said the United States should consider reinstating a guest-worker program to alleviate the pressure for illegal immigration created by Mexico’s inability to produce enough jobs for its people.

“It makes sense--it has in the past, it may well continue to do so in the future--to have some sort of guest-worker program,” Wilson said. “But not the kind of thing we have been seeing where there has been massive illegal immigration, where whole families have come and where they are . . . requiring services that are being paid for by state taxpayers.”

Immigrant advocates immediately accused Wilson of hypocrisy and attempting to ensure low-cost labor for agribusiness even as he seeks to deny public services to illegal immigrants. “It’s like saying you can’t attend our schools, but you can still pick cotton for us,” Sharry said.

More on Immigration: Reprints of the Times “Immigration” series are available from Times on Demand. The series examined significant immigration issues. $5. Mail only. Order No. 8504. For a reprint of a recent Times article explaining Prop. 187, order No. 5509. $2.50. Fax or mail. An expanded package of articles on immigration and the impact of Prop. 187 is also available on the TimesLink on-line service.

Details on Times electronic services and ordering instructions, A6.