The Baker administration will “formally oppose” a proposed federal rule change that would restrict the ability of immigrants to obtain green cards if they receive public benefits including Medicaid or food stamps, a spokesman for the governor said Monday.

The Department of Homeland Security announced the move on Saturday, saying it would ensure individuals seeking to enter and stay in the country “can support themselves financially and will not be reliant on public benefits.”

The proposal would expand the definition of “public charge,” a person who can be denied a green card because they are dependent on government benefits, to cover recipients of the supplemental nutrition assistance program, Section 8 housing choice vouchers and project-based rental assistance, public housing, “institutionalization for long-term care at government expense,” Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, and Medicaid, with limited exceptions for emergency medical conditions and certain disability services related to education.

“Under long-standing federal law, those seeking to immigrate to the United States must show they can support themselves financially,” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement. “The Department takes seriously its responsibility to be transparent in its rulemaking and is welcoming public comment on the proposed rule. This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”

Over the weekend, several Massachusetts immigrant and health care advocacy groups condemned the proposed rule, which will be subject to a 60-day public comment period once it is officially published in the Federal Register. Through a spokesman, Gov. Charlie Baker offered criticism on Monday as well.

“The Baker-Polito Administration values the immigrant community’s role in making Massachusetts a vibrant and competitive commonwealth and the Administration believes this proposed rule change would result in individuals not accessing basic needs like food assistance or medical care for them or their family,” Baker spokesman Brendan Moss said in a statement to the News Service. “The Administration will formally oppose this proposal as the process moves forward.”

Joined together as part of the national Protecting Immigrant Families campaign, the groups Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA), Health Care for All and Health Law Advocates said they would fight against the change and work to raise awareness of it.

The groups said the new policy would make it easier to deny permanent residency to anyone earning less than 250 percent of the federal poverty limit, or $62,750 for a family of four.

MIRA executive director Eva Millona called the idea “a toxic blend of nativism and class warfare.”

“It is overtly discriminatory, and we will fight vigorously to ensure that the proposed rule is never adopted,” she said.

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice said the proposal “is unconstitutional because the federal government is using public assistance as a proxy for race” and creates an “unprecedented financial litmus test to qualify for immigration protection and relief.”

Espinoza-Madrigal -- whose organization has sued the Trump administration over immigration arrests at courthouses, the proposed defunding of so-called sanctuary cities, and the termination of temporary protected status for nationals of Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras -- said there are already federal laws in place to screen for immigrants likely to become a public charge.

“The proposed policy change is already producing a profound chilling effect. Families are scared,” he said in a statement. “They are foregoing life-saving services to qualify for immigration protection and relief. It is cruel to make a family choose between putting food on the table or getting a green card. It is inhumane to make a family choose between staying healthy or securing immigration protection.”

The public charge inadmissibility provision does not apply to asylees or refugees. The Department of Homeland Security said disaster relief, emergency medical assistance, benefits received by an immigrant’s U.S. citizen’s children, or benefits received by immigrants serving in the U.S. military and their spouses and children would not be considered for purposes of determining inadmissibility.