So, now we're going from 2 prints required for a visa application, to 10 prints required for a visa application. I can imagine the conversation that led to this decision: "Hey, if two prints makes us secure, TEN prints will make us FIVE TIMES as secure!" "Yeah, yeah -- that's good! Constituents love security!"
So, does fingerprinting visa applicants make us more secure? Hard to say. 'Security' is one of those words that is used to mean so many things, it ends up meaning nothing. Same with 'terrorism'. You have to work to really pin down what the person is trying to signify. Just how would you go about quantifying security? When is one able to say, "Yes, I am, in fact, secure."? I can say that fingerprinting applicants is an excellent way to catch visa fraud. But I'm not so sure that 10 prints instead of 2 prints will make catching visa fraud 5 times as likely.
Retinal scans, however... that's where the REAL money is. Write your congressmen.